E  X  8  I<] 


ffonstmction  Jets  of  Congress, 


C'HITI  GAL    REVIEW 


INAUGURAL    OF    H.   H.   HAIGHT, 


GOVERNOR  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


)  M  P  K  I  S  \  X  G   I  M  PORT  A  X  T   P  0  I  N  T  S    AT   I  S  S  U  V.   TN   T  H  E   P  R  E  S  E  X  T    ('  A  M  P  A  I  ( ,  \  : 


J  v  <•«!><•< 'i  r\  ill  v    !_)<><  I  u-ated 


To  the  Union-Republican  Congressmen  from  the  Pacific  States, 


TO  THK  ORDER  OF  FREEDOM'S  DEFENDERS, 


ES. 


.42 


SAX     FIIAXCISCO: 

HIP  B>    JOHN   STR  ATM  \\,  \0.    506  WASHINGTON  ST. 
1868. 


Price,  25  Gents.. 


iaflU  01  Contents  for 


rfmna. 


Pn>l>(>>tili>D,.-* 


hi.  thr   I>efe»se. 


The  insurgent  States  had  no  right  to  secede  by  their  own  authority 1">   i:i 

Iii  a  Kepublieau  Government,  a  minority  cannot  assume  or  resume  powers  of  in- 


14, 


'.f.V,,rgitwl 

\r,nir,iphf. 

is,  it;.  24 


dependent  sovereignly  at  pleasure,  except  iu  the  case  of  just  Revolution,  .. 
The  case   of  the  Fathers  of  the  American  Independence  was  altogether  drti'erent'fr'om 

that  of  the  late  insurgent  States 

The  insurgent  States  forfeited  their  civil  governments.'aiid 'ail'  theYignts  and privilege's'' 

of  Federal  States  de  jure, 25  2«  ^7 

The  insurgent  States  forfeited  their  civil  governments,  and  ail  the  right's  and  privileges  ' 

of  federal  .states  de.  facto, ;;...  45  46 

The  rebel  Governments  and  .ill  their  acts  were  illegal,  null 'and  void';"on'the'co'ntrarv ' 

the  United  states  Government,  both  before  and  after  the  secession  of  the  South', 


.21,  2?,  23 

2.1 

,  29,  30,  40 
,  48,  49,  50 


The 


the  war  ;  loyal  soldiers,  on  the  contrary.  ar« 
and  the  natinnni  ;i«v 


28,  29  and  (10,  ill 
>d  by 
lies 
Iges 


lie 
tot' 


the 
lire 


to 


.67.68.li!> 


...85,80 
Ill 

.112,  l 


P^Z^^o2 


20,  21,  2.'.  L1:;,  •_'! 

.4.. 31,  3-J 

r- 

35,  36,  37,  38.  3'.' 
l- 

1..41.  4.' 

--  r^ioucu  alter  trial  and  on  fair  conviction l.  .4:1,  41 

..„„„.>  ueeiared  that  the  war  was  not  waged  m  any  spirit  of  oppress!  n, 

conquest,  or  subjugation  of  the  Southern  States I     51    52   53  54   •-,-, 

7.     Congress  repeatedly  recognized  their  separate  State  existence .......I..... ......  .'..-I?  5«'  57*  5s 

H.  The  Southern  Mates,  since  their  secession,  have  not  been  represented  in  Congress'; 
therefore,  the  acts  of  Congress  since  that  time,  and  until  all  said  States  are  repre- 
sented. *r»  illegal ,,;._>  i;:;  ,  , 

!'.     As  soon  as  the  war  ended  the  Southern  States  were  entitled  to  all  their  former  rights 

and  privileges,  including  that  of  representation  in  Congress .......  4     71    7' 

in.     The  policy  ,,f  Congress  is  inhuman  and  tyrannical,  and  the  punishment'iunictcd'oii'the  " 

southern  people  is  excessively  severe A.. 74,  75,  7G,  77.  78.  79   8(i 

11.  Tin'  Congressional  policy  places  the  southern  people  under  military  despotism  :  it 

1 1 •  s  martial  law  in  a  period  of  profound  peace     " .4 

12.  The  Congressional  policy  subjects  the  white  population  of  the  South  to'a'mass'of" 

ignorant  negroes  and  compels  the  whites  to  exile  themselves,.-! .  .84,  85,  86,  87.88,89,90,91 ,92.93,9-1 

13.  The  Congressional  policy  will  introduce  the  antipathy  of  race  into  political  cont> 

and  lead  to  strife  and  bloodshe  ' A    95 

14.  Voters  should  be  qualified  :  negrots  are  not ..." .' .'.'.' \\\. . . "  "..'.'.'Jl'.  .90,  97,  \>'d,  90,  id 

The  people  of  the  South  have  in  good  faith  submitted  to  the  results  <  f  the  war .4  . .  101 

16.  If  justice  a'id  right  to  protection  require  the  ballot  to  be  given  to  the  negro,  then  they  flOi' 

equally  require  it  to  be  given  to  Chinamen,  females,  minors,  etc., .4..  102, 103, 104,  103, 106, 107,  lOh 

17.  The  Congressional  policy  proposes  to  ignore  all  discriminatio  .  in  political  privileges .4..  lit 


.SI.  n 


>OTK.— The  reader  will  remark  that  most  of  the  reasons  given  in  the  defense  are  very  concise.  This 
is  owing  to  tbe  necessity  of  preparins  a  brief  summary  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the  main  points  al 
issue  rest  for  persons  who  have  not  time  to  read  long  dissertations.  — (AUTHOR). 


ut 


DEFENSE 


1  In  commencing  the  defense  of  the  Congressional  Reconstruction,  and  the  critical 
review  of  Governor  Haighfs  Inaugural  Address,  we  deem  it  necessary  to  acquaint  the 
reader  with  the  motives  which  have  impelled  us  to  this  undertaking,  lest  it  may  appear  on 
our  part  an  act  of  temerity.    They  are  two— right  and  duty. 

2  When  the  policy  of  one  party  is  fiercely  attacked   by  another,  it  is  the  undisputed 
rio-ht  of  every  member  of  the  former  to  defend  it  from  the  assaults  of  the  latter  ;  but,  when 
that  policy  is  approved  by  the  majority  of  a  nation,  tt  is  then  the  bouuden  duty  ot  every 
loval  citi/en  and  friend  of  the  government  to  rally  to  its  support. 

"  3  The  attack  made  upon  a  policy  sanctioned  by  the  majority  of  a  commonwealth  is 
a  covert  assault  upon  the  fundamental  principle  of  a  Republican  Government,  that  "the 
majoritv  must  rule."  If  this  principle  be  surrendered,  the  magnificent  edifice  of  the  Re- 
public 'must  necessarily  fall.  The  beautiful  statue  of  liberty  will  soon  crumble  to  frag- 
ments, social  order  wilf  cease,  anarchy  will  prevail,  popular  government  will  be  at  an  end. 

4  Can  a  loyal  citizen,  a  friend  of  popular  institutions,  be  instrumental  to  such  lament- 
able'catastrophe  by  culpable  inactivity  ?    Can  the  friends  of  freedom  and  progress  remain 
indifferent  to  the  evils  which  will  thence  ensue,  not  in  this  country  alone,  but  all  over  the 
world  ?    Now  this  is  precisely  our  case. 

5  The  acts  of  Congress  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  late  insurgent  States,  supported 
by  the  Union-Republican  Party,  approved  by  the  majority  of  the  nation,  are  vehemently 
denounced  as  tyrannical  and  unconstitutional  by  the  Democracy.    The  Author  of  the  Inau- 
o-ural  Address  (1)  styles  them   "  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Constitution; 
a  violation  ofiiherty  ;"of  every  sentiment  of  humanity  and' Christianity  ;  a  disgrace  to  our  country 
and  to  the  aye  iniduch  we  Ui-e." 

6.  We  claim,  therefore,  that  it  is  both  our  right  and  duty  to  defend  the  Reconstruction 
lets  with  all  the  force  of  argument  we  can  control  ;  and,  though  we  are  not  a  match  for  a 
.-•iant  we  mav  nevertheless  u-y  our  sling.  Indeed,  if  seeing  very  clearly  by  the  light  of 
reason  which  God  has  given  us,  the  right,  justice,  and  necessity  of  those  acts,  either  from 
human  fear,  or  other  base  motive,  we  should  shrink  from  the  duty  of  expressing  publicly 
our  sentiments  we  would  be  criminal  deserters  of  a  sacred  cause  ;  would  be  guilty  of  omis- 
sion in  a  strict  duty  to  the  Government ;  and,  as  far  as  it  lies  in  our  power,  would  frustrate 
the  noble  design  of  a  wise  Providence  in  endowing  men  with  reason,  that  they  may  thereby 
subserve  their  own  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  society  in  which  they  live.  Earnestly  we 
trust  and  prav.  that  the  enormous  weight  of  such  infamous  crime  may  never  rest  on  our 
conscience  !  "Hence,  openly  and  fearlessly  we  affirm,  that  the  reconstruction  measures  of 
Congress  respecting  the  insurgent  States  are  founded  on  right,  justice,  and  necessity  ;  and 
as  such  are  entitled  to  the  support  of  every  loyal  American  citizen  and  friend  of  just 
government. 

7  For  the  sake  of  order,  we  shall  divide  the  Review  and  Defense  into  three  parts, 
and  shall  endeavor  to  prove,  three  points  :  FIRST— We  shall  demonstrate  that  the  insurgent 
States  had  no  right  to  secede  by  their  own  authority  ;  SECOND— That  by  rebellion  and  se- 
cession they  lost  their  character  and  condition  of  States  of  the  Union,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  war  thev  had  no  civil  governments  ;  FINALLY— We  shall  consider  the  logical  results  of 
the  crime  and  punishment  of  armed  rebellion,  and  shall  reply  to  various  objections  and 
false  charges  started  by  our  adversary  and  his  party-friends. 

8  The  long  list  of  wrongs  recited  by  the  'Author  of  the  Inaugural  and  repeated  by 
the  Democratic  Convention  as  arising  from  the  Congressional  policy  of  reconstruction,  are 
based  upon- the  assumption  that  the  insurgent  States  are  still  in  the  Union  as  States,  and 
are  therefore  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Federal  States  under  the  Consti 
tion.    Now  this  assumption  requires  proof;  for,  it  contains  in  reality  the  chief  point  m 

(1)  The  quotation  in  italics  in  this  article  are  extracts  from  Governor  H.  H.  HAIGHT'S  INAUGUBAL 
ADDBEU  which  we  have  selected  in  preference  to  other  documents  because  it  contains  in  brief  all  the 
mahi  objections  and  charges  of  the  Democracy  against  Congressional  reconstruction. 


controversy  ;  the  main  position,  on  the  gain  or  loss  of  which  depends  the  victory  or  defeat 
of  the  one'side  or  the  other. 

9.  This  important  point  the  author  of  the  Inaugural  proves  as  follows  :  '•  Tl  e  hare  fought 
aqainst  the  principle  of  secession,  and  hare  established  the  doctrine,  that  no  Staff  run  imthdrcnc 
from  the  Union  (by  its  own  authority.)     Those  States  (therefore)  are  not  out  of  the  Union  (as 
States).''  This  argument  may  more  forcibly  be  presented  thus:  If  we  admit  that   the  insur- 
gent States  are  out  of  the  Union  as  States,  we  must  admit  that  they  had  the  right  to  secede 
by  their  own  authority :  but  we  cannot  admit  that  they  had  the  right  to  secede  by  their 
own  authority,  consistently  with  the  principles  we  held  and  established  by  the  war  ;  there- 
fore the  insurgent  States  are  not  out  of  the  Union  as  States. 

10.  The  logical  force  ot  this  argument  is  similar  to  the   following  :    If  we  admit  that 
a  murderer  can  be  deprived  of  life,  we  must  admit  that  he  can  kill  himself  by  his  own  au- 
thority :  but  we    cannot  admit  that  a  murderer  can  kill  himself  by  his  own  authority  : 
therefore  a  murderer  cannot  be  deprived  of  life. 


11. 


In  the  author's  syllogism,  the  minor  proposition  is  unquestionably  true  : 
uprises  one  of  the  inain  divisions  of  our  subject,  we  design  to  support  it  by  c 


and  as 


that  comprises  one  of  the  main  divisions  of  our  subject,  we  design  to  support  it  by  copious 
arguments. 


TUE   INSURGENT   STATES   HAD   NO   RIGHT   TO   SECEDE   BY   THEIR   OWN    AUTHORITY. 

12.  What  is  it  to  secede  from  the  Union  by  State  authority  ?  It  is  to  withdraw  from 
the  National  Union  :  it  is  to  assume,  or  (as  secessionists  say)  to  resume  powers  of  separate 
and  independent  sovereignty,  not  by  National,  but  by  State  authority.  No  Federal  State 
can  secede  thus.  .  . 

13     Whether  a  State  assume  or  resume  sovereign  powers,  which  by  the  admiss 
are  vested  in  the  Federal  Government  under  the  Constitution,  it  is  evident  that  such  an  as- 
sumption by  the  former  is  a  derogation  of  power  from  the  latter  which  leads  to  its  final 
extinction  ;  it  supposes  therefore  a  repeal  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

14.  The  author  of  the  Address  affirms  the  same  thing  in  these  words  :  the  right  qt  any 
member  of  the  Union  to  icithdraic  atpleasure,  and  thereby  extinguish  Federal  authority  over  its 
citizens,  could  never  be  recognized  without  asstnting  to  the  practical  repeal  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  abolition  of  the  Federal  Government.'' 

15  But,  neither  the  Constitution  can  be  repealed,  nor  can  the  Federal  Government  be 
abolished  by  separate  State  authority  ;  simply,  because  a  law  and  government  which  ema- 
nate from  a  superior  power  can  neither  be  altered  nor  abolished  by  an  inferior  one.  1  his 
principle  is  universally  admitted,  and  upon  it  rest  in  great  measure  both  sacred  and  civil 
jurisprudence. 

1(5  Now,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  having  been  first  adopted  by  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  General  Congress  assembled,  and  ratified 
afterwards  by  the  people  of  said  States,  derives  its  power  from  the  people  of  the  L  nited 
States  collectively  ;  it  can  neither  be  altered  therefore,  nor  abolished  by  separate  State  au- 
thority, any  more  than  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California  can  be  amended  or  re- 
pealed by  one  county. 

17  But  State  authority  is  paramount  to  Federal  authority,  reply  secessionists.    This 
assertion  is  'positively  denied,  for  the  following  reasons  :   First— The   absurdities  which 
would  follow  are  absolutely  inadmissible.    If  State  authority  were  superior  to  the  Federal, 
each  and  every  State  would  really  be  a  separate  and  independent  sovereignty  ;  conse- 
quently the  Union  of  States  would  be  nominal  and  not  real.    Each  State,  though  a  part  ot 
the  Union  would  possess  more  power  than  the  whole  Union.    The  Federal  Government 
would  be  destitute  of  jurisdiction.    The  Constitution  which  creates  three  different  branches 
of  the  Government  and  defines  their  respective  powers  and  duties,  would  be  useless  and 
nugatory     The  form  of  Government  of  the  United  States  would  not— as  required  by  the 
Constitution— be  republican  in  form ;  because  a  Republican  Government  is  founded  on 
"the  will  of  the  majority  as  a  rule."    But  if  every  Federal  State  is  really  sovereign  and 
independent,  even  in  National  matters,  the  majority  of  States  can  exercise  no  control 

ovor  it  • 

18  '  Second— State  authority  cannot  be  superior  to  Federal  authority,  because  it  is  cre- 
ated by  the  latter.    Each  and  every  State  was  raised  to  that  position  by  the  National  will, 
and  previous  to  its  admission  into  the  sisterhood  of  States  was  either  a  colony  or  territory 
under  authority.     This  fact  can  easily  be  proved  by  the  history  of  the  Nation     The  thir- 
teen original  colonies  were  primitively  subject  to  the  British  Crown,  and  each  of  them  was 
made  a  free  and  independent  State  by  the  will  of  the  people  of  the  United  Col6nies,  who. 
through  their  Representatives  in  General  Congress  assembled,  issued  a  Declaration  known 
as  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  they  successfully  supported  with  their  blood 
and  treasure     The  words  of  the  Declaration  are  so  clear,  on  this  point,  as  to  need  no  com- 
ment •  "  We  therefore,  the  Representatives,  etc.,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the 


>•!  people  of  those  Colonies.  solemnly  publish  ami  declare  that  these  United  Colonies  are 
"  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent  States  :  that  they  are  absolved  from  all 
••  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown,  etc.  And  for  the  support  of  this  Declaration  we  mutually 
••  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  saered  honor." 

Now  with  regard  to  other  States,  subsequently  admitted  into  the  Union,  the  National 
PCOrds  snow  likewise   that  they  were  formerly  territories  of  the  United  States,  and  were 
admitted  into  the  I  uiou  as  States  n,,,],.,.  rvderal  authority  in  National  matters,  by  an  act  of 
Congress.     Therefore.  State  authority  is  not  superior  to  Federal  authority. 

If).  rAini—  Supposing,  even,  that  some  States  (not  all)  had  once  been  separate  inde- 
pendent sovereignties:  when  they  created  the  Federal  Government  for  mutual  protection 
they  entered  into  a  compact,  that  all  national  questions  should  be  discussed  in  the  National 
Council.  To  this  compact  they  did.  and  all  n-w  States  do  agree,  before  their  admission 
into  the  I  nion  ;  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  violated  without  a  breach  of  public  faith  Hence 
to  rifr  '  ^  tbe  Uulted  SUtea  are  d8DendeQt  io  national  questions  upon  Federal  au- 

20.  Fourth—Even  if  we  suppose  that  each  State  had  a  separate  national  existence  be- 
fore the  formation  of  the  Federal  Government  —State  authority  is  nevertheless  inferior  to 

ederal  authority  :  and  the  people  of  a  State  cannot  resume  at  pleasure  the  sovereign 
powers  delegated  to  the  General  Government. 

21.  The  doctrine  that  ••  Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  governed  " 
aely  '  the  people,    is  undoubtedly  true,  and  is  amply  supported  bv  reason  and  fact.    It 

w  likewise  true,  that  the  people  may  choose  the  form  of  government  which  they  deem  best 
ather  Monarchical,  or  Republican,  or  Mixed  ;  also,  that  they  may  grant  their  powers  to 
Governments  for  a  definite  or  an  indefinite  period  of  time.  But,  withal,  when  a  people  by 
H'lr  own  free  act  have  formed  a  Government  and  clothed  it  with  power,  both  civil  ri-ht 
and  custom  teach  that  they  are  bound  by  their  own  act;  that  they  become  subject  to  the 
Government  of  their  choice,  and  cannot  resume  their  original  powers  except  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  they  have  adopted. 

22     Now.  there  is  not  a  Constitution  among  those  framed  by  Nations,  which  grants 
eave  to  a  minority  to  resume  powers  of  independent  sovereignty.*  pleasure.    Certainly, 
the  Cons  i  tiition  of  the  L  mted  States  does  not  grant  it  to  any  Single  State.    Such  a  concej- 
sion  would  be  a  nullification  of  the  Constitution,  and  would  constitute  the  germ  of  dSsolu- 
lon  within  the  Government     If  minorities  had  the  right  under  the  Constitution,  to  assume 
JhJvTg  i  !T"rs      i)ll'ilsliro-  t^'.v  woul.l  not  be  effectually  bound  by  its  provisions.    For, 
they  *ould  have  in  their  own  hands  the  power  to  release  themselves  from  its  obligations 
SXTn  ^y^^-The  number  of  a  minority  might  be  steadily  reduced  f  n   1  i 
reaches  one.     Every  individual,  therefore,  when  resisted  in  his  wicked  designs,  by  law- 
it  resume  his  original  sovereign  power  ;  declare  his  independence,  and  place  himself 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  law.     All  which  is  evidently  absurd 

SL  „*  fire  *r  °"e  Cas<1<  h?™r'  i'1  w;hich  minorities  may  resume  their  sovereign  powers 
when  Col,  *  T  l)ITSCt:ib<;;1  «y  the  Constitution.  nam,ly.  by  Revolution.  Tdis  occurs 
when  Governments  tyrannically  use  the  powers  intrusted  to  them,  or  usurp  others  ungrant- 

b,  \     nSG  ,0fpr<f  IOU  °f  thel/;  8UlJJeCtf  '     But  ™vollltion-  i-vn  in  this  extreme  case,  can  only 

he  F  uher,  t0f  ",hc':\evor7  otiu*  It-gal  remedy  has  been  exhausted.    Such  was  the  case  3 

athers  of  the  American  Revolution,  as  they  declared  in  the  Document  of  Independ- 

^e,  which  is  altogether  different  from  the  case  of  the  late  insurgent  States,  which  had 


To  conclude  :  each  and  every  State  of  the  Union,  whether  originally  sovereign  and 
?s  to  Fed  v0,1'  n°H  T"  ltsT^dmissioQ.iPto  ^  ^ion  became  subordinate  in  national  mat 
rJ  in  r  ^ithority  The  proposition,  therefore,  advanced  by  the  author  of  the  Inau- 

a/  "    llTnjenif  ^ttes  hads°  ri*u  io  ^  *y  their™»  ™<horw< 

does  not  hence  follow,  as  he  concludes,  that"^eu  are  still  in  the 
i 


BV  REBKLLIOX  AXT>  SECESSION  THE  IXSl-ROEST  STATES  LOST  THEPR  CHARACTER  *VD  COVMTIOV 
OF  STATES  IX  THE  C.MOX,  AND  AT  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  WAR  THET  HAD  XO  CI^L  ™* 
r.K 


it  i  ^-oii^V?^01".!  Stat€  has.a  cloublc  signification,  one  geographical,  the  other  political, 

fa  well  to  define  the  sense  in  which  it  is  employed  in  the  foregoing  proposition     The 

word  State  in  a  geographical  acceptation  denotes  a  certain  section  of  a  ,  cSuntry  and  is  BI 

nonymous  to  the  word  estate  or  possession  ;  because  it  forms  a  part  of  the  national  do-" 

StcirUin^r^^SSSi*  SigDifieS  thC  ^"^  °^™ti™  of  »  People  according 

26.    In  the  above  proposition,  the  word  Slate  is  evidently  used  according  to  the  latter 


signification  ;  for  the  Southern  States  in  a  geographical  sense  are.  and  were  in  the  Union 
after,  as  well  as  before,  the  war.  When,  therefore,  we  affirm  that  the  insurgent  Stales  are 
out  of  the  Union  as  States,  we  mean  that  they  have  no  legal  Governments,  and  that  they 
are  excluded  from  the  national  rights  and  privileges  enjoyed  by  Federal  States  nnder  the 
Constitution.  On  this  point  we  are  at  issue  not  only  with  secession,  but  anti-secession  Dem- 
ocrats also.  We  are,  therefore,  asked  on  all  sides,  How  is  it  that  States  formerly  in  the 
Union  have  become  disorganized  and  are  excluded  from  the  participation  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  granted  by  the  Constitution  to  Federal  States  ?  The  answer  is  simple.  By  the 
crime  of  secession,  rebellion  and  war  against  the  Government,  the  insurgent  States  forfeited 
their  civil  governments  and  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Federal  States,  both  de  jure  and 
de  facto.  The  alleged  reason  contains  two  parts  :  first  de  jure  from  right ;  second  de  facto 
from  fact.  We  shall  expound  the  first  part,  and  begin  with  the  illustration  above  offered  in 
the  parallel  argument. 

27.  FIRST  PART  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.     "  THE  IXSCRGKXT  STATES  FORFEITED  THEIR  CIVIL  GOV- 

KRNMEXTS  AND  ALL  THE  RIGHTS  AND  PRIVILEGES  OF  FEDERAL    STATES    df  jure." 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  no  man  can  take  away  his  own  life  and  destroy  the  physical 
union  of  the  body  and  soul  by  self-authority,  because  the  natural  law  forbids  it ;  and  by 
the  same  law,  no  other  man  or  body  of  men  can  deprive  him  of  the  right  to  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  as  long  as  he  complies  with  the  laws  of  the  community  wherein 
he  lives.  If,  however,  he  violate  the  law  ot  society  in  points  that  are  essential  to  its 
existence  ;  as,  if  he  should  murder  peaceful  citizens,  or  attempt  to  destroy  the  civil  govern- 
ment ;  in  that  event,  the  natural  right  of  self-preservation  justifies  both  man  and  society  to 
defend  their  own  existence  at  the  peril  even  of  the  aggressor's  life  ;  and,  by  the  declaration 
of  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  Universe  and  of  all  mankind,  on  account  of  his  wicked  and 
deadly  assault  the  aggressor  forfeits  all  his  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  happiness  granted  by 
natural  law. 

28.  In  the  same  manner,  by  the  Federal  Constitution  no  State  can  withdraw  from  the 
Union  by  its  own  authority  :  and  by  the  same  instrument,  neither  the  Federal  Government, 
nor  any  State  or  States  can  expel  another  from  the  Union,  or  exclude  it  from  a  participa- 
tion in  its  Federal  rights  and  privileges,  as  long  as  it  complies  with  the  requirements  of 
the  Constitution.    But,  if  a  State  or  States  violate  the  Constitution  in  points  that  are  essen- 
tial to  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  ;  as,  if  States  should  withdraw  from  the  Union  with- 
out national  consent ;  if  subsequently,  when  asked  to  obey  the  Constitution,  they  should 
refuse,  and  attempt  to  strike  down  the  life  of  the  Nation  ;  in  that  case,  the  right  of  self- 
preservation,  as  well  as  the  duty  of  enforcing  the  national  law,  justifies  the  Government  in 
defending  itself  and  the  Constitution  at  all  costs  and  hazards,  even,  if  it  need  be,  by  the 
total  subversion  and  destruction  of  the  insurgent  States  ;  and  by  the  law  of  Nations,  found- 
ed on  the  natural  law,  on  account  of  their  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  armed  aggres- 
sion, said  States  forfeit  all  their  political  rights  and  privileges,  but  chiefly  the  right  of  self- 
government. 

29.  This  doctrine  has  ever  been  maintained  both  in  theory  and  practice  by  all  Nations, 
as  attested  by  ancient  and  modern  history  ;  and  there  never  was  a  rebellious  State  so  utterly 
impudent  and  arrogant,  after  having  been  subdued  by  force  of  arms,  as  to  still  claim  the 
right  of  self-government  and  a  full  share  of  political  privileges. 

30.  Now  the  case  we  have  described  is  precisely  that  of  the  Southern  insurgent  States 
as  proved  by  the  history  of  the  rebellion.    In  the  first  place,  they  violated  the  Constitu- 
tion in  essential  points  by  seizing  Federal  property  and  by  seceding  from  the  Union  with- 
out the  national  consent ;  Avbich,  as  it  has  been  demonstrated,  no  Federal  State  can  right- 
fully do.    Subsequently,  being  asked  by  Constitutional  authority  to  restore  the  property 
seized  and  to  return  to  their  allegiance,  they  peremptorily  and  persistently  refused.    Lastly, 
they  fired  the  first  gun  against  the  country's  flag,  and  most  wickedly  attempted  to  strike 
down  the  life  of  the  Nation.    Hence,  by  the  law  and  custom  of  Nations  founded  on  the 
natural  law,  they  forfeited  dejure  their  civil  governments,  and  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  Federal  States  ;  consequently,  by  reason  of  these  acts,  they  ceased  to  be  States  in  the 
Union. 

31.  But  Democrats  reply  •'  that  States  can  not  forfeit  their  rights/'    "  The  people  of  a 
State  (say  some)  may  rebel  ;  but  the  State  itself  cannot,  because  it  has  no  superior.-' 

32.  This  answer,  to  say  the  least,  is  void  of  sense  :  for,  what  does  it  mean,  that  "  a  State 
cannot  rebel,"  and  that  "  it  has  no  'superior  "  ?    In  what  sense  is  the  word  •'  State  "  here 
taken  ?    In  the  geographical,  signifying  a  section  of  land  ?    The  idea  is  then  both  laugha- 
ble and  absurd.     Who  ever  heard  of  a  tract  of  land  rebelling  against  a  Government  ?    Nor 
is  it  true,  in  this  case,  that  the  land  spoken  of  has  no  superior  ;  for  it  has  a  soverign,  name- 
ly, the  united  States.    Is  the  word  ••  State  "  used  in  a  political  sense,  denoting  the  civil  or- 
ganization of  a  people  according  to  a  certain  form  of  government  ?.   In  this  case,  both 
propositions,  that  "  a  State  cannot  rebel  "  and  "  has  no  superior,"  are  false,  and  in  plain 
contradiction  with  the  first  assertion,  "  the  people  of  a  State  may  rebel." 

33.  "  But  States  cannot  forfeit  their  rights,"  urge  "  the  unterrified."    Why?    Because 
they  are  granted  by  the  Constitution  in  perpetuity.   Aye  ;  but  not  unconditionally.   The  con- 
dition is  that  States  shall  not  violate  the  Constitution  ;  shall  not  resist  Federal  authority  ; 
shall  not  attempt  to  destroy  the  Government. 


31.  Put  wo  find  no  whore  in  the  Constitution,  insist  they,  that  States  may  be  punished 
for  crime  with  privation  of  all  their  rights.  To  this  hist  corner,  therefore,  must  our  adver- 
saries retreat  in  their  (lofens.eless  position.  We  find  no  where  in  the  Constitution  that  States 
may  be  punished  for  crime  with  privation  of  their  Federal  rights  :  therefore,  they  hold 
them  perpetually  :  therefore,  they  hold  them  unconditionally.  In  real  earnest,  is  this"logic? 
is  this  knowledge  of  common  and  natural  law?  You  find  not  in  the  Constitution  that  States 
may  be  punished  for  plunger,  rebellion,  and  aggression.  Are.  then,  these  no  longer  crimes  ? 
are  they  no  longer  punishable  ?  Aye  :  say  ye  they  are  punishable,  but  cannot  be  punished 
because  nothing  is  said  on  the  subject  in  the  Constitution. 

:>.">.  According  to  your  theory,  therefore,  the  Constitution  is  a  shield  for  criminals,  not 
a  bulwark  of  protection  for-  law-abiding  people  ;  it  is  a  promoter  of  disorder,  not  of  order. 
Will  you  admit  these  conclusions  ?  But  we  emphatically  deny  that  the  power  to  deprive 
rebel  States  of  their  political  rights  is  not  comprised 'in  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  con- 
tained in  explicit  language,  we  admit ;  but  that  is  not  necessary,  for  the  following  reasons  : 
First—  Because  the  object  of  the  Constitution  properly,  is  to  designate  the  different  branch- 
es of  Government,  and  to  define  their  powers  :  to  by  down  general  principles  and  to  adopt 
general  rules  for  the  foundation  of  future  legislation.  The  specification  of  cases  which 
are  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  the  fixing  of  penalties  therefor,  belong  to  the  stat- 
ute law  enacted  by  the  National  Legislature.  Second— -Not  all  crimes  and  penalties  are  ne- 
cessarily specified  even  in  a  criminal  code.  Thus,  crimes  that  fall  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
military  power,  such  as  rebellion,  which  is  suppressed  by-  the  military,  are  not  necessarily 
comprised  in  the  civil  code.  Also  crimes,  the  penalty  of  which  is"  fixed  by  the  natural, 
evangelical,  and  common  law,  as  murder  in  the  first  degree,  need  not  absolutely  be  men- 
tioned. Various  crimes,  whose  niturj  and  gravity  must  ba  judged  from  circumstances, 
have  often  no  certain  penalty  affixed  to  thorn  by  express  law. 

36.  Do  you  wish  to  know.  then,  how  the  power  to  deprive  rebel  States  of  their  rights 
is  contained  in  the  Constitution  ?    It  is  contained  implicitly.    It  is  contained  in  the  princi- 
ples of  natural  and  common  law  on  which  the  Constitution  is  founded.     It  is  contained  in 
the  right  granted  by  the  Author  of  Nature  to  Nations,  as  well  as  to  individuals,  to  defend 
their  own  existence  against   an  unjust  aggressor,  by  the  destruction  if  it  need  be  of  his  life, 
whether  political  or  natural.     It  is  contained  in  the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  levy 
war.  and  to  guaranty  to  each  State  a  Republican  form  of  Government,  which  means  to  en- 
force submission  to  the  will  of  the  majority  legally  expressed.     When,  therefore,  a  certain 
power,  like  the  one  in  question,  is  necessarily  presupposed  in  the  Constitution,  it  is  therein 
implicitly  contained. 

37.  But  is  it  not  strange  that  they  who  defend  the  independent  sovereignty  of  each 
State  should  advance  this  objection?    These  men  maintain  that  State  authority  is  para- 
mount to  the  Federal,  and  therefore,  a  State  has  the  right  to  secede  at  pleasure.    At  the 
same  tune,  they  hold  also  that  the  rights  of  a  Federal  State  as  well  as  the  Union  are  per- 
petual ;  because  such  was  the  design  of  its  authors.     According  to  the  former  doctrine. 

lerefore.  States  have  the  right  to  secede,  because  they  are  independent  sovereignties  ;  and 
according  to  the  latter,  they  cannot  secede  because  the  Union  is  perpetual.  These  two  ex- 
tremes are  evidently  contradictory.  Secession-Democrats  cannot  have  both  :  they  must 
make  their  choice.  Whichever  they  choose,  will  fail  them  of  support. 

38.  But.  however  great  the  inconsistency  of  secession-Democrats  may  be,  it  appears  in- 
ignificant  when  compared  with  the  self-contradiction  of  their  confreres,  the  anti-secession 

Democrats.  These  men.  variously  styled  as  anti-war-Democrats,  Conservatives,  late  mem- 
bers of  the  I  nion  party,  hold  that  State  authority  is  inferior  to  the  Federal ;  that  no  State 
has  the  right  to  secede  at  pleasure  ;  consequently,  that  Rebellion  was  a  crime  :  that  the  war 
tor  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  was  constitutional 
to  the  full  extent  :  yet.  they  also  admit  that  the  rights  of  States  in  the  Union  are  perpetual 
and  unconditional.  The  war.  therefore,  to  its  full  extent,  in  defense  of  the  Government 
was  in  their  opinion  constitutional :  yet,  the  logical,  inevitable  results  of  both  the  crime  of 
rebellion  and  of  the  war.  namely,  the  destruction  of  the  rebel  governments,  their  privation 
ot  Federal  rights  are  unconstitutional.  This  is  equivalent  to  affirming  and  denying  the 
same  thing,  ot  the  same  subject,  and  at  the  same  time.  That  men  of  culture  should  fall 
nto  so  palpable  a  contradiction,  is  a  painful  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  human  reason  • 
but,  that  they  should  be  extolled  by  partisan  favor,  as  bright  luminaries  of  intelligence  and 
.statesmanship,  is  im  insult  to  the  science  of  government  and  to  an  enlightened  communitv 
39.  No  ;  under  no  circumstances  shall  we  grant  that  the  rights  of  States  under  the 
Constitution  are  perpetual  and  unconditional,  except  our  opponents  maintain  that  theCon- 
intuUon  is  above  both  natural  and  divine  laws,  which  absolutely  require  of  all  subordinates 
whether  Mates  or  individuals,  submission  to  lawful  authority,  fulfillment  of  agreements, 
and  forbearance  from  all  aggressive  a 

T  -4°'  To, return'  therefore,  to  our  first  argument :  the  insurgent  States  are  out  of  the 
Union,  not  because  they  had  the  right  to  secede,  but  inversely,  because  they  had  not  the 
right  to  secede.  Hence,  the  argument  of  the  author  of  the  Inaugural :  "  T^e  cannot  admit 
(hat  theinsuryent  States  had  the  right  to  secede  by  their  own  authority,  conwtentlu  icith  the 
principles  ice  held  and  established  by  the  war  ;  therefore  they  are  not  out  of  the  Union  as  States  " 


is  defective  in  logical  connection  between  antecedent  and  consequent.  The  conclusion 
should  be  exactly  the  contrary  one.  We  cannot  admit  that  the  insurgent  States»had  any 
right  to  secede  by  their  own  authority,  to  plunder  Federal  property,  or  to  wage  war  against 
the  Government  ;  therefore,  they  are' out  of  the  Union  as  States  :  that  is.  they  have  forfeit- 
ed dejure  their  civil  governments  and  State  rights,  though  their  obligations  remain,  and 
like  conquered  provinces  they  are  under  the  authority  and  law  of  the  Federal  Government 

41.  Similar  to  the  preceding  is  tl*'  fallacy  contained  in  the  following  dilemma,  often 
proposed  by  democrats  :  "  One  of  the  two  propositions  is  true  ;  either  the  Southern  States 
seceded  or  they  did  not,     If  their  ordinances  of  secession  were  valid  the  war  was  wicked 
and  unjust  :  if"  they  were  invalid  and  void,  then,  as  a  matter  of  course,  those  States  were 
never  out  of  the  Union,  and  forfeited  none  of  their  rights  under  the  Constitution." 

42.  This  dilemma  may  be  retorted  as  follows  :  one  of  the  two  propositions  is  true ; 
either  the  Southern  States  seceded  or  they  did  not.     If  their  ordinances  of  secession  were 
valid,  then,   as  a  matter   of  course,  those  States  went  out  of  the  Union,  and  forfeited  all 
their  rights  under  the  Constitution  ;  if  they  were  invalid  and  void,  the  war  was  not  wicked 
and  unjust.     Hence  it  appears  that  this  dilemma  is  a  mere  sophism,  since  it  proves  equally 


valid  and  void.  then,  as  a  matter  of  course,  those  States  were  never  out  of  the  Union,  and 
forfeited  none  of  their  rights  under  the  Constitution/'  The  inference  should  be  precisely 
the  contrary.  For,  if  the  ordinances  of  secession  were  invalid  and  void,  their  passage  was 
a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  for  which,  as  well  as  for  other  crimes,  they  justly  forfeited 
their  rights  under  the  Constitution. 

43.  But  if  rebellion  and  war  upon  the  Government  are  crimes,  resumes  the  author  of 
the  Address,  in  that  case  they  should  be  punished,  after  trial  and  on  fair  conviction.     ';  Jl  is 
insisted,"  says  he,  "  6y  those  who  argue  in  favor  of  the  reconstruction   measures,  that  the 
southern  people  rebelled,  and  that  rebels  ought  not  to  possess  political  rights  or  functions.     The 
ansicer  to  this  is  plain.    jVo  man  or  class  of  men  under  our  form  of  government  can  be  de- 
prived of  rights  or  punished  for  crime,  except  after  a  fair  trial  and  convict 

44.  Truly  the  proposition,  if  absurd,  is  yet  ingenuous !     For  neither  judges  nor  jurors 
could  be  found  North  and  South  duly  qualified  to  try  the  rebellious  States,  en  account  of 
either  complicity,  bias,  or  prejndgment  of  the  case.     What?  to  try  by  jury  crimes  so  public, 
committed  by  whole  States,  and  already  judged  and  vindicated  by  the  sword  in  the  battle- 
field ?    Can  a  proposition  be  more  preposterous,  more  contrary  to  the  law  and  usage  of 
nations?    Are  not  crimes  subject  to  military  law  in  time  of  war?    And  in  time  of  peace 
are  there  not  crimes  which  may  be  summarily  punished  even  by  private  authority,  without 
trial,  as  burglary  and  murderous  assault?     Is  the  punishment  inflicted  in  these  cases  any  less 


important 
trial  is  required  in  one  case,  neither  in  the  other. 

45.  SECOND  PART  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.     "  THE  INSURGENT  STATES  FORFEITED  THEIR  CIVIL 
GOVERNMENTS,  AND  ALL  THE  RIGHTS  AND  PRIVILEGES  OF  FEDERAL  STATES  de  facto."    Thus  far 
we  have  viewed  the    insurgent  States  in  their  true  light  as^violators  of  the  Constitution 
and 

look 

rnent  ^  _    .  . 

feited  their  civil  governments  and  all  political  rights  and  privileges. 

46.  Within  the  period  of  five  years,  between  I860  and  18G5,  they  had  two  different  civil 
governments  ;  one  which  professed  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and  another  to  the  Con- 
federate States.     Both  were  defaclo  destroyed  ;  hence,  at  the  close  of  the  civil  war  in  1864, 
no  civil  governments  existed  in  the  South. 

47.  The  local  governments  which  maintained  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  were  de- 
stroyed by  the  Southern  States  themselves  in  1860  and  '61,  when  Confederate  governments 
were  established  in  their  place.     From  that  moment,  therefore,  their  rights  and  privileges 
as  Federal  States  ceased  entirely.     Mr.  Trumbull,  in  his  speech  delivered  in  the  United 
States  Senate  January  23,  1868,  clearly  explains  this  point.     '•  They  (the  insurgent  States) 
"  could  not  take  themselves  out  of  the  Union,  and  they  could  not  take  their  State  out  of  the 
••  Union  ;  but  what  could  they  do,  and  what  did  they  do  ?    They  had  a  State  organization. 
••  They  could  destroy  that  State  organization,  and  they  did  destroy  it.    The  political  organ- 
-  ization  of  the  State  was  by  their  own  act  destroyed  in  1861,  and  then  the  people  of  that 
••  State  had  no  ability  to  perform  any  act  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which 
"  it  required  a  political  State  Organization  to  perform.   Hence  they  could  not  elect  a  Senator 
"  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.    Why?    Because  they  had  no  political  State  organ- 
••  ization,  no  Legislature  ;  and  the  Constitution  says  that  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  the 
"  Legislatures  of  their  respective  States.     Hence  their  representation  ceased.     Of  course  a 
"  hostile  organization— one  which  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  we  had  author- 
"  ity  to  put  down  by  force  of  arms,  and  which  we  did  put  down  by  force  of  arms— could  not 


•'  elect  a  Senator  to  this  body.  That  was  not  the  State  organization  contemplated  by  the 
••  Constitution,  because  the  Constitution  provided  for  a  State  Legislature  composed  of  mem- 
••  bi-rs  who  were  loyal  and  true  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

l>.  Xow  the  governments  which  owed  allegiance  to  the  Confederacy  were  destroyed 
by  the  forces  of  the  United  States,  as  is  well  known.  The  Confederate  States  declared 
their  independence  :  upon  that  point  a  controversy  arose  between  them  and  the  United 
States  ;  both  sides  appealed  to  the  arbitration  of  the  sword.  Upon  its  decision  their  polit- 
ical rights,  property,  fortunes,  even  life  itself,  were  staked.  The  decision  of  the  sword 
written  in  characters  of  blood,  was  rendered  in  the  battle-field  amidst  the  clash  of  arms, 
the  thunder  of  cannon,  the  shrieking  of  shells.  The  decision  was  that  "the  Union  was 
right  and  the  Rebellion  was  wrong.7'  The  cause  of  the  Confederate  States  was  then  lost, 
together  with  their  civil  governments  and  political  rights. 

49.  What  claim  have  they  now  to  the  disputed  right,  after  having  been  settled  by  the 
sword  ?    Who  ever  heard  of  a  belligerent,  fairly  beaten  in  battle,  impudently  demanding 
the  immediate  restoration  of  the  rights  which  he  had  forfeited? 

50.  The  verdict  of  the  sword  and  its  practical  results  were  frankly  admitted  by  the 
leading  Generals  of  the  Confederate  Armies,  at  the  time  of  surrender  on  the  battle-field, 
who  therefore  counseled  their  comrades  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and,  with  a  manly  spirit  of 
submission,  asked  no  other  terms  than  a  generous  pardon.     The  author  of  the  Inaugural 
concedes  this  fact :  "  those  In  arms  against  the  national  authority  surrendered  without  any 
conditions  other  than  such  as  were  agreed  upon  by  the  generals  in  the  field  "  ;  and  neverthe- 
!<•>>.  with  singular  inconsistency,  he  immediately  steps   back  and  claims  for  the  defeated 
Confederates  not  as  a  favor,  but  as  a  right,  the  restoration  of  all  their  civil  and  political 
privileges.     As  well  may  a  criminal  convicted  of  murder  in  the  first  degree  assert  his  claim 
to  the  gubernatorial  chair  of  a  State ! 

51.  But  Congress,  replies  the  author,  "•formally  declared  that  the  war  was  not  waged  on 
u'/'1  part  in  any  spirit  of  oppression;  nor  in  am/  spirit  of  conquest  or  subjugation ;  nor  for  the 
purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  icith  the  rights  or  established  institutions  of  those  Stales.'' 

~>'2.  So  will,  sometimes,  a  good  and  peaceful  man  assure  an  unjust  aggressor,  that  he 
has  no  intention  of  taking  his  life,  nor  even  of  fighting  with  him.  if  he  will  desist  from  his 
unjust  attack.  So  will  often  a  public  officer  also,  declare  to  an  offender  that  he  will  use  no 
coercion,  if  the  latter  will  peacefully  submit  to  authority.  In  either*  case,  however,  if  the 
transgressor  persist  in  his  wicked  purpose,  will  the  author  say  that  the  other  party  is  bound 
by  his  promise  to  sacrifice  his  rights,  to  forsake  his  duty,  to  imperil  his  life  for  the  offend- 
er's sake !  Common  sense,  law,  and  usage  scornfully  reject  a  doctrine  so  pernicious  and 
absurd. 

53.  It  is  true,  therefore,  that  President  Lincoln  proclaimed  in  his  first  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress, that  the  North  would  not  unsheathe  the  sword  except  the.South  did  it  first.    It  is  true 
that  Congress  declared  that  '•  the  war  was  not  waged  by  the  Government  for  the  purpose 
of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  Southern  Institutions."     But  to  all  these  declara- 
tions and  promises,  a  condition  was  added,  that  the  insurgent  States  should  lay  down  their 
anus  :  restore  the  Federal  property  ;  obey  the  Constitution. 

54.  These  conditions  were  not  fulfilled.    Resistance  to  authority  was  carried  to  the 
extreme.     The  insurgent  States  impressed  in  their  army  every  man  capable  of  bearing 
arms.  •'  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,1'  as  Grant  concisely  expressed  it.    They  proclaimed  to 
the  world  their  intention,  "either  to  win  or  to  die."    In  this  emergency  "either  swim  or 
sink."  either  conquer  orperish,  was  the  alternative  of  the  Federal  Government.     The  right 
and  duty  of  preserving  its  own  existence,  and  of  enforcing  the  law  of  the  land,  left  no  op- 
tion as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued.    "  The  Nation  must  and  shall  be  preserved  "  was  the 
unanimous  response  of  the  loyal  people  from  one  end  of  the  Republic  to  the  other.     The 
struggle  that  followed  was  fearful,  and  the  results  such  as  might  have  been  expected.     Le- 
gislatures, Executives,  Judiciaries ;  in  a  word,  all  the  civil  governments  of  the  insurgent 
States  were  swept  out  of  existence  by  the  tornado  of  war,  like  chaff  before  the  wind. 

55.  Who  is  to  blame  for  this  result?    Undoubtedly,  the  unjust  aggressor  who  obsti- 
nately refused  in  time  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  right,  justice,  and  reconciliation.    The  prom- 
ise made  by  Lincoln  and  Congress  to  preserve  the  Southern  institutions  was  prompted  by 
Clemency  and  Generosity,  not  demanded  by  Justice.    But  acts  of  clemency  are  always  con- 
ditional, and  must  be  merited  by  submission  ;  whereas  the  duty  of  Justice  is  absolute  and 
admits  not  of  dispensation.    The  Federal  Government  was  released  from  its  pledge,  the 
moment  the  insurgent  States  refused  to  lay  down  their  arms. 

."id.  But  Congress,  insists  the  author,  "  repeatedly  recognized  their  separate  State  existence 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Constitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery,  in  the  official  intercourse 
with  the  other  States  and  the  General  Government,  in  the  appointment  and  confirmation  of  judi- 
cial and  other  officer-s  for  them." 

57.  This  assertion  is  positively  denied.  Congress  declined  to  recognize  the  provisional 
Governments  set  up  by  the  arbitrary  power  of  President  Johnson  ;  hence  it  steadily  re- 
fused to  admit  their  delegates  to  seats  in  the  National  Capitol.  Congress,  it  is  true,  toler- 
ated them  for  a  period  of  time,  for  experiment  sake  ;  but  toleration  is  not  recognition.  It 
was  during  this  time  of  probation  that  Congress  submitted  to  them  the  Constitutional 


8 

amendment  abolishing  slavery  ;  that  it  appointed  judicial  officers  for  them,  and  did  other 
acts  with  a  view  of  testing  the  sincerity  of  their  submission  to  Federal  authority  previous 
to  the  ratification  of  their  provisional  Governments  and  their  admission  to  Congressional 
representation. 

58.  How  sadly  disappointed  was  Congress  in  its  expectations  is  a  well  known  fact. 
The  new  Governments  made  use  of  their  power  to  reenslave  the  freedmen  in  another  form  ; 
to  restore  impenitent  rebels  to  power  :  to  supply  them  with  arms  against  the  friends  of  the 
Federal  Government,  and  those  especially  who  fought  for  its  preservation  :  so  that  thou- 
sands of  loyal  men  were  compelled  to  flee  for  their  lives.     Very  justly,  therefore.  Congress 
refused  to  recognize  the  new  civil  Governments  appointed  by  the  President,  until  they 
complied  with  the  Congressional  provisions. 

59.  To  RECAPITULATE  THE  WHOLE  ARGUMENT  IN  BRIEF.     The  plunder  of  Federal  proper- 
ty ;  the  act  of  secession  by  State  authority  ;  the  act  of  rebellion  and  war  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment committed  by  the  insurgent  Southern  States  are  unjustifiable  crimes  which,  by  the 
Constitution  and  by  the  law  of  Nations  and  in  accordance  with  the  natural  and  evangelical 
law,  are  punishable  with  the  privation  of  all  political  rights  and  even  with  death.     The 
Southern  insurgent  .States  therefore  forfeited  dejure  all  their  rights,  both  State  and  National  ; 
they  forfeited  them  de  facto  also  ;  since  the  loyal  State  organizations  were  destroyed  by  their 
own  act  in  1861,  and  the  rebel  organizations  were  destroyed  by  the  Federal  forces.    Therefore. 
by  rebellion  and  secession  the  insurgent  States  lost  their  character  and  condition  of  States 
in  the  Union,  and  at  the  close  of  the  war  they  had  no  civil  Governments. 


THE    LOGICAL   CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE    CRIME    AND   PUNISHMENT   OF    ARMED    REBELLION.       FALSE 
CHARGES  AND  OBJECTIONS  OF  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  INAUGURAL  AND  PARTY  MEN. 

60.  The  crimes  of  the  insurgent  States  and  their  well-merited  punishment  having  thus 
been  clearly  established,  it  is  time  now  to  consider  the  logical  consequences  which  thence 
inevitably  follow. 

61.  FIRST  INFERENCE.    If  the  acts  of  secession,  rebellion,  and  war  upon  the  Govern- 
ment were  clear  violations  of  the  Constitution,  and  high  crimes  on  the  part  of  the  insur- 
gent States,  the  rebel  governments  set  up  by  them,  and  all  their  acts,  were  illegal,  null  and 
void.    By  the  contrary  reason,  both  before  and  after  the  secession  of  the  South,  the  United 
States  was  the  true  and  legitimate  Government,  having  full  power  to  make  and  enforce 
laws  :  and  all  its  acts  for  the  preservation  of  the  National  Union,  and  the  suppression  of 
rebellion,  either  as  a  military  or  political  necessity,  were  perfectly  just,  legal  and  valid. 

62.  But  a  certain  class  of  opponents  stop  us  right  here,  and  say  that  they  can  not  ad- 
mit that  after  the  secession  of  the  Southern  States  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Congress  were 
legal,  for  it  had  no  power  to  make  laws.    According  to  the  Constitution,  they  say,  for  the 
legal  validity  of  Congressional  acts,  it  js  necessary  that  all  States  be  represented.     The 
Southern  States,  since  their  secession,  were  not  represented  in  Congress,  therefore  the  acts 
of  Congress  since  that  time,  and  until  said  States  are  represented,  are  not  legal. 

63.  As  this  objection   comes  from  the  allies  of  those  who  defiantly  bade1  an  eternal 
farewell  to  the  National  Halls,  and  severed  all  connection  with  the  North,  it  afford*  us.  we 
confess,  considerable   amusement.     For  it  appears,  from  the  tenacity   with  which  their 
friends  cling  to  their  presumed  right  to  the  Congressional  seats,  that  their  magnanimous 
resolve  was  not  altogether  sincere.    Be  it  as  it  may,  the  proposition  that  ••  for  the  validity 
of  Congressional  acts  it  is  necessary  that  all  States  be  represented,"  is  not  altogether  true. 
For,  if  for  the  validity  of  a  Constitutional  amendment,  the  consent  of  two  thirds  of  tin- 
States  is  sufficient,   why,  for  the  validity  of  a  Congressional  act,  is  the  consent  of  the 
representatives  of  two  thirds  of  the  States  insufficient?    But  supposing  that  it  is  necessary 
that  all  the  States  be  represented  in  Congress,  the  Constitution  evidently  means  States  in 
the  Union.     The  rebel  States,  we  have  proved,  ceased  de  jure  and  de  facto  to  be  States  in 
the  Union  when  they  set  up  rebel  Governments  ;  since  that  time,  therefore,  according  to 
the  Constitution,  their  representation  in  Congress  was  no  longer  necessary. 

64.  Besides,  the  absurdities  which  from  the  contrary  proposition  would  follow,  make 
the  latter  utterly  inadmissible.    If  the  representation   of  rebel  States  were  necessary  for 
the  legal  validity  of  the  acts  of  Congress,  said  States  would  be  in  reality  integral  parts  of 
two  antagonistic  Governments  :  they  would  at  the  same  time  be  composing  and  dissolving 
elements  of  the  Union.    The  South  would  have  the  right  of  being  represented  both  at 
Richmond  and  Washington  ;  not  so  the  North.    Thus,  the  acts  of  the  Southern   Congress 
would  be  legal  without  the  vote  of  the  North  ;  the  acts  of  the  Northern  Congress  would  be 
illegal  without  the  vote  of  the  South.    Hence  disloyalty  could  legalize  its  own  acts,  whilst 
loyalty  could  not.    Disloyalty,  no  matter  how  much  in  the  minority,  could   at  pleasure 
impede  legislation  by  withdrawing,  and  thus  obstruct  the  machinery  of  government  ;  loy- 
alty, on  the  other  hand,  would  be  entirely  helpless  ;  hence  the  Constitution  would  offer  a 
superior  advantage  to  disloyalty  and  encourage  it  effectively.    Will  our  opponents  admit 


all  these  absurdities?  Will  they  go  down  the  whole  depth  of  the  precipice  of  error ''  If 
not,  they  must  retrace  their  steps. 

(55.  SKCOXD  IXFKRKXCE.  If  in  consequence  of  secession,  rebellion  and  war  upon  the 
Government,  the  insurgent  States  forfeited  all  their  rights,  it  follows,  by  irresistible  conclu- 
sion, that  they  have  no  right  to  any  political  office,  either  State  or  National  :  that  they  are 
not  entitled  to  any  compensation  for  lo-^es  su<tained  by  the  war.  nor  to  the  payment  of 
the  Confederate  debt,  nor  to  the  pension  of  rebel  soldiers.  By  the  contrary  reason,  they 
who  were  loyal  to  the  Government  in  the  hour  of  peril,  and  offered  their  lives  and  treas- 
ure for  its  support,  are  entitled  to  the  promised  bounties  ;  and  the  National  debt,  contract- 
ed on  account  of  the  war.  must  be  paid  faithfully  and  entirely,  in  accordance  with  the 
pledge  given.  No  debt  was  ever  more  necessary,  more  just,  and  more  beneficial  to  the 
Nation,  for  it  was  the  price  of  our  national  life.  The  faith  and  honor  of  the  Nation.  a> 
well  as  the  credit  of  republican  institutions,  are  pending  on  the  punctual  discharge  of  this 
sacred  obligation.  The  remarks  made  by  the  Geneva  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  their 
friendly  communication  to  the  American  Congress,  are  pertinent  here,  and  deserve  the 
careful  consideration  of  the  American  people.  They  are  as  follows:  "Brethren  of  the 
-  United  States,  pray  hear  us.  *  *  The  moral  responsibility  of  a  republican  people  is 
••  much  more  at  stake  than  that  of  a  people  governed  by  an  absolute  monarch  ;  they  ought 
••  to  know  that  they  can  not  put  on  any  body  but  themselves  the  dishonor  which  would  result 
••  from  breaking  their  engagements  ;  they  ought  to  know  that  to  a  people,  as  to  individuals. 
••  the  true  means  to  establish  their  credit,  and  to  give  a  solid  basis  to  the  confidence  placed  in 
••  them,  is  to  fulfil  most  scrupulously  every  engagement  they  may  have  contracted." 

6(5.  THIRD  IXFEKEXCE.  If  the  insurgent  States  forfeited  de  jure  the  right  of  self-gov- 
ernment in  local  matters,  and  the  rebel  governments  were  destroyed  by  the  hand  of  war. 
so  that  at  its  close  no  civil  governments  existed  in  those  States,  the  power,  therefore,  which 
succeeded  them  was  the  military,  which,  according  to  the  law  and  custom  of  nations,  holds 
public  control  until  a  civil  government  is  established  by  authority  of  the  conquering 
power  :  and  during  tbjt  period  of  military  rule,  by  the  same  law  and  custom  of  nations, 
the  writ  of  habeas  coj-pH  and  trial  by  jury  are  superseded  by  military  orders  and  tribunals. 

67.  FOURTH  INFKBBXCB.     If.  at  the  close  of  the  war.  there  were  no  civil  governments 
in  the  seceded  States,  and,  as  stated,  they  were  then  under  military  rule,  it  follows  that  they 
became  subject  to  Congress  with  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  they  should  be  governed 
by  military  commanders  ;  the  term  of  duration  of  the  military  rule  ;  the  conditions  for  its 
cessation  :  the  power  of  reorganizing  civil  governments  ;  their  mode  and   conditions  ;  the 
ratification  of  the  new  Constitutions,  and  the  qualifications  of  the  delegates  to  Congress. 
The  reason  is.  because  all  these  things  must  be  defined  and  sanctioned  by  law.   Now,  neither 
the  Executive  nor  the  Judiciary  Department  has  the  power  to  frame  laws,  but  Congress 

atone.  oancroft  L*ibi 

68.  It  follows,  therefore,  strictly,  first :  that  Congress  has  power  to  reconstruct,  or  re- 
organize  the  late  insurgent  States  ;  second:  that  it  has  power  to  regulate  the  question  of 
suffrage  in  said  States  for  that  object.    Because,  means  and  end  are  inseparable  ;  authority 
therefore  over  the  latter,  implies  it  over  the  former  also. 

69.  Hence  we  gather  the  following  important  doctrine  concerning  the  power  of  Con- 
gress to  regulate  suffrage  in  the  insurgent  States  ;  it  arises  from  the  following  sources  :  1st. 
directly  from  the  special  jurisdiction  acquired  over  the  insurgent  States  de  jure,  by  their  le- 
gal forfeiture  of  rights  ;  and  de  faclo  by  the  result  of  the  war  which  destroyed  their  civil 
governments,  in  consequence  of  which,  by  the  law  and  custom  of  nations,  each  of  them 
may  be  reorganized  at  such  a  time, .  in  such  a  manner,  and  under  such  conditions  as  may 
seem  expedient  to  the  conquering  power  for  the  public  safety  ;  2d,  it  arises  from  the  fact 
that  the  regulation  of  suffrage  in  the  South  is  an  absolutely  necessary  means  for  protecting 
both  the  life  of  the  Nation  and  of  its  citizens  ;  and  since  every  law,  human  and  divine,  im- 
poses on  the  Government  the  obligation  of  defending  its  own  existence,  as  well  as  that  of 
its  subjects,  they  consequently  grant  the  use  of  the  necessary  means.    Now,  if  said  laws 
permit  the  use  of  the  bullet,  when  necessary  for  self-defense,  why  not  the  ballot  also?    3d. 
The  right  to  regulate  suffrage  arises  moreover  from  the  injunction  made  upon  the  Govern- 
ment by  the  Constitution  in  Art.  IV.,  Sec.  4,  "  to  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a 
Republican  form  of  government " ;  and  from  the  power  conferred  upon  Congress  in  the 
last  clause  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  "To  make  all  laws 
''  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers  and 
"  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
"  any  department  or  officer  thereof."     Whenever,  therefore,  by  reason  of  some  article  em- 
bodied in   the  Constitution  of  a  State,  or   any  other   cause,  the  Government  of  a  State  is 
anti-republican  in  form,  Congress  by  virtue  of  the  foregoing  clause  has  the  power  to  pass 
a  law  for  the  compliance  with  Art.  IV.,  Sec.  4,  of  the  Constitution.    Hence  it  may  regulate 
suffrage  by  law  if  neces-ary. 

70.  From  all  this,  it  appears  that  the  power  to  abolish  slavery,  under  the  Constitution, 
existed  previous  to  the  military  necessity  claimed  by  the  Emancipation  Act.    For  the  Gov- 
ernment which  permits  human  beings,  made  in  the  image  of  God,"to  be  driven  like  cattle 
to  the  market,  is  neither  Republican,  nor  Christian,  nor  Human.    Nevertheless,  it  seems 


10 

that  uur  eminent  statesmen,  fearing  a  terrible  convulsion,  and  probable  disruption  of  the 
Union,  if  that  power  was  enforced,  hesitated,  and  connived  at  iniquity  for  over  eighty  years. 
But  the  God  of  Justice  and  Right  would  not  tolerate  it  any  longer  ;  and  in  the  appointed 
time,— as  Lincoln  in  his  second  Inaugural  rightly  said,—"  lie  gave  the  Nation  a  terrible  war. 
by^vhich.  as  by  a  baptism  of  blood,  this  country  was  cleansed  and  purified  of  the  sinful 
stain  of  I Iiiniau  Slavery." 

71.  But,  Democrats,  though  compelled  to  grant  that  at  the  end  of  the  war  the  insurgent 
States  had  no  civil  governments,  and  became  therefore  subject  to  Congressional  legislation, 
contend  nevertheless,  that  the  war  being  ended  they  immediately  recovered  all  their  former 
rights  and  privileges,  including  the  right  of  representation  in  Congress.    Such  a  result  is 
certainly  marvelous  as  well  as  unexpected.     Why  ?  to  lose  and  yet  win  on  one   side  ;  to 
win  and  yet  lose  on  the  other?     This  is  certainly  a  most  extraordinary  result.     If  the  suc- 
cessful termination  of  the  war  brought  such  a  result,  victory  then  was  worse  than  defeat : 
to  fight  four  years,  to  sacrifice  thousands  of  lives,  to  spend  millions  of  treasure  in  order  to 
.secure  such  a  result,  would  be  the  highest  folly  and  crime.     In  what  code  of  law,  either 
modern  or  ancient,  do  our  opponents  find  that  States  which  forfeited  all  their  rights  and 
privileges,  both  de  jure  and  de  facto,  regain  them  at  once  as  soon  as  conquered  by  the 
sword  ?     What '.'   to  readmit  immediately  into  the  Union  rebellious  States  that  sought  the 
destruction  of  the  Nation  ?   that   fought  with  desperation,  and  gave  up  the  contest  only 
when  they  fell  exhausted  under  the  staggering  blows  of  Grant?  to  readmit  them  to  the 
full  participation  of  power,  honor,  and  glory,  without  even  imposing  a  small  penalty  for 
their  enormous  crimes  ?  without  exacting  any  probation,  requiring  any  security  of  submis- 
sion in  future  ?     Would  this,  pray,  be  a  due  regard  to  the  public  safety  ?     Would  it  be  a 
vindication  of  the  Constitution?  a  tribute  of  justice  to  the  loyal  States  ?  to  the  gallant  sol- 
diers who  are  living,  and  to  the  heroes  who  are  dead  ? 

72.  That  secessionists  should  speak  so,  is  not  surprising  ;  but  that  men  who  supported 
the  war  for  the  Union  should  entertain   the   same  sentiments,    appears  -almost  incredible. 
Yet,  such  is  the  fact.     One  of  them,  recently  elevated  to  the  high  position  of  United  States 
Senator,  did  not  hesitate  to  use  the  following  language  before  a  pnolic  assembly  :  (1)  "By 
••  your  consent  the  pledge  proceeds  from  me  to  contribute  by  all  the  power  that  in  me  lies 
••  to  the  speedy,  immediate,  unconditional  release  of  the  people  of  the  ten  Southern  States 
••  from  the  bondage  which  I  have  already  described,  and  the  restoration  as  an  entirely  and 
•'  totality  of  every  constitutional  right  of  those  States  as  members  of  this  Union."     The  senti- 
ments of  the  author  of  the  Address  are  analogous  to  the  preceding.     May  we  ask  these 
champions,  these  bright  lights  of  a  regenerated  Democracy,  if  at  the   time  they  supported 
the  war  for  the  Union,  they  knew  the  consequences  which  rebellion  entails  upon  the  guilty 
by  tbe  law  and  custom  of  every  Nation,  both  modern  and  ancient  ?    If  they  did  not,  they 
evince  the  most  lamentable  ignorance  ;  if  they  did,  the  most  grievous  Inconsistency* 

73.  FIFTH  INFERENCE.    If  the  plunder  of  Federal  property,  secession,  rebellion,  and 
war  upon  the  Government  were  crimes,  and  the  privation  of  political  rights  a  just  punish- 
ment, as  it  has  been  demonstrated,  it  is  then  the  duty  of  every  friend  of  social  order,  right, 
and  justice  to  approve  and  not  to  condemn  in  harsh  language  that  punishment ;  just  as  ev- 
ery honest  citizen  approves  the  vindication  of  the  law  by  the  punishment  of  those  guilty  of 
its  infraction. 

74.  But,   punishment,  replies   the  author  of  the  Inaugural    with    the    whole  Dem- 
ocratic party,  should  not  be  excessively  severe.     "  The  Congressional  policy  subjects  the 
white    population  of  the  South,  men,  icomen,  and  children,  to  the  domination  of  a  mass  of 
ignorant  negroes  just  freed  from  slavery.    lttcompels  them  to  exile  themselves  from  the  soil  in 
which  sleeps  the  dust  of  their  kindred  for  generations.    It  places  them  under  military  rule." 
Surely,  such  a  punishment  is  too  severe,  and  unworthy  of  a  magnanimous  and  Christian 
Nation. 

75.  Omitting  for  the  present  the  particular,  we  will  give  first  a  general  answer  to  this 
objection.    A  punishment  which  is  less  than  the  desert  of  a  crime  is  not  too  severe.     The 
crimes  of  rebellion  and  aggression  upon  the  Government  committed  by  the  Southern  States, 
are  punished  by  nations  generally  with  privation  of  all  political  rights  ;  with  confiscation 
of  property,  banishment,  and  sometimes  with  death.    Now,  has  the  Federal  Government 
punished  the  chief  leaders  of  the  rebellion  with  death,  as  England  did  the  Sepoys  ;  and 
bloody  Spain  her  revolutionists  ?    No  ;  it  has  released  them  on  parole,  even  the  arch-traitor 
himself:    Has  the  Federal  Government  disfranchised   all  those  who  participated  in  the  re- 
bellion ?  No  ;  except  a  small  number  which  is  diminished  by  the  amnesty  proclamation.  Has 
the  Government  confiscated  all  their  property  ?    No  ;  most  of  the  property  seized  during  the 
war  has  been  restored  to  them.    Has  the  Government  banished  them  from  the  country  ? 
No  ;  it  has  allowed  them  to  live  at  option  in  any  part  of  the  national  domain  ;  to  enjoy 
liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.     And  is  this  too  severe  a  punishment  for  their  scan- 
dalous rebellion  against  authority,  and  the  immense  sacrifice  of  life  and  treasure  which 
they  have  caused  to  the  Nation  ? 

.     76.    But  "  they  are  our  countrymen,"  rejoins  the  author ;  "they  are  the  bone  of  our  bone 

(1)  Eugene  Casserly. 


.11 


,i,,,lil'  .-•/,  ,if  ,>,»'  Jh'sh."  Aye  =  :U1(1  tll('  P>ibl{'  k'lls  us  tbat  "if  thine  °-vc  offend  tbee  Pluck  il 
out."  ami  it'  thine  hand  onVnd  thee  cut  it  off." 

77.  Before  pronouncing  a  punishment  too  seven',  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  into  the 
nature  nf  the  crime  committed.  Crime  and  punishment  are  correlatives,  connected  together 
a<  cause  and  effect.  It  is  a  practice,  both  unjust  and  prejudicial  to  society,  to  separate 
them  in  public  debate.  If  the  execution  of  a  criminal  be  viewed  without  reference  to  his 
crime,  it  will  appear  a  murder  ;  and  every  punishment  seen  in  a  separate  light  will  seem 
not  only  excessive  but  a  positive  injustice. 

7s  It  is  thus,  that  the  enemies  of  the  Congressional  Reconstruction  make  the  measures 
of  Congress  appear  not  onlv  too  harsh,  but  unjust  and  cruel.  It  is  thus,  that  they  make 
what  tliev  call  mdicaUs/n  asynonyme  of  severity,  cruelty,  and  inhumanity:  when,  in  reality, 
it  i-  simplv  justice  to  the  innocent,  and  justice,  tempered'  with  mercy,  to  the  guilty.  It  is 
thus,  that  'they  who  hypocritically  affect  love  and  devotion  for  the  Constitution,  while  seem- 
inglv  shrinking  with  horror  from  any  thing  which  is  not  expressly  contained  in  that  doc- 
ume'nt.  sometimes  hide,  sometimes  defend  the  grossest  violations  of  their  partisans,  for 
which,  in  other  countries,  individuals  forfeit  all  rights  except  one  —  "  the  gallows." 

7'J.  Incessant  is  the  clamor  of  these  men  against  Congress,  that  it  is  unconstitutional 
to  deprive  the  Southern  States  of  their  rights,  but  never  do  they  look  upon  it  as  a  well- 
deserved  punishment  :  they  never  refer  to  the  crimes  which  entailed  it,  for  less  they  rep- 
resent them  in  a  fair  light.  "  Instead  of  this,  they  destroy  the  chapter  of  history  which  relates 
the  guilt,  and  retain  only  that  which  records  the  punishment.  And  upon  this  they  dwell  at 
length  ;  this  they  comment,  describe,  and  magnify  to  immense  proportions.  for  the  purpose 
of  arousing  the  imagination  and  passions  of  the  simple  and  uninformed,  and  of  convincing 
them  that  the  Congressional  measures  are.  in  the  language  of  the  Author  of  the  Inaugural, 
••  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Constitution,  a  violation  of  liberty,  of  every 
sentiment  of  hum'tn'tti  and  Christianity,  a  disgrace  to  the  country  and  to  the  age  in  which  we 
lii-e.''  As  well  may  "they  sever  the  head  from  a  human  body,  in  order  to  make  it  appear  a 
monster,  as  to  omit  in  the  history  of  reconstruction  the  fact  that  the  Southern  States  for- 
feited all  their  rights  by  rebellion,  in  order  that  the  acts  of  Congress  may  seem  unconstitu- 
tional. Restore  the  mutilated  portion  of  the  narrative,  and  all  parts  will  perfectly  corres- 
pond. Let  the  case  of  the  insurgent  States  be  fairly  explained  to  the  people,  and,  beyond 
all  doubt,  no  conscientious  man  will  ever  accuse  Congress  of  severity,  but  rather  of  exces- 
sive leniency  toward  those  States. 

80.  But"  why  conceal  the  history  of  the  crime  ?  why  pass  over  its  horrible  details  ? 
why  suppress  its  aggravating  circumstances  '.'     What  is  the  intent,  the  object,  the  motive  ? 
Are  they  who  do  this  sincere?    Are  they  honest?    Shall,  then,  the  present  and  future  gen- 
erations be  deprived  of  the  only  advantage  which  may  accrue  to  them  from  the  terrible 
scourge  with  which  a  kind  Providence  has  visited  this  country,  namely,  a  moral  lesson  for 
themselves  and  children  that  "  Rebellion  is  a  heinous  crime,  and  its  consequences  are  ter- 
rible ?"     Shall  we  then  forget  so  soon  five  hundred  thousand  brave  soldiers  cut  down  in  the 
prime  of  life  by  the  accursed  hand  of  rebellion?    Shall  we  obliterate  the  wailings,  sighs, 
and  tears  of  bereaved  mothers,  sisters  and  wives  occasioned  by  this  execrable  monster? 
Shall  we  have  compassion  on  the  guilty,  and  refuse  our  tears  of  sympathy  to  the  poor 
widows  and  orphans  of  the  innocent  victims?    Let  us  be  humane  with  our  wayward  breth- 
ren!   Aye.  let  us  be  clement  and  generous!    But  before  being  clement,  let  us  be  just  to 
the  innocent  as  well  as  to  the  guilty  !    Clemency  is  a  charming  quality,  but  justice  is  an 
absolute  duty  !    Justice  is  the  supreme  attribute  of  the  Deity!    Upon  justice,  as  upon  an 
adamantine  basis,  the  world  is  poised!    Let,  then,  "  IMPARTIAL  JUSTICE  TO  ALL  MEN,"  be 
our  motto,  for  it  is  inscribed  in  flaming  characters  on  the  sword  of  the  Omnipotent. 

81.  Thus  far  we  have  refuted  the  objection  of  the  author  on  general  grounds  ;  we  shall 
now  pass  to  the  particular.    "  The  Congressional  policy  (says  he)  subjects  the  white  population 
<>f  the  South,  men,  women,  and  children,  to  the  domination  of  a  mass  of  ignorant  negroes,  just 

l  from  slavery.  It  compels  them  to  exile  themselves  from  the  soil  in  which  sleeps  Uie  dust 
of  their  kindred  for  generations.  It  places  them  under  military  rule.'1  This  objection  com- 
prises two  charges;  that  the  Congressional  policy  subjects  the  Southern  people  to  the  dom- 
ination of  the  negro,  and  that  it  subjects  them  to  the  power  of  the  military.  We  shall 
commence  with  the  latter. 

fe2.  •'  In  these  measures,'7  says  the  author,  "  Congress  commits  the  solecism  of  legislating 
martial  laic,  that  is  under  a  Constitutional  Government,  in  a  period  of  profound  peace."  Just 
so.  if  the  insurgent  States  were  not  subject  to  Congressional  legislation  by  the  right  of  war. 
Just  so,  if  they  had  submitted  to  authority  in  good  faith,  if  they  had  not  persecuted  loyal 
citizens.  Thousands  of  them  were  murdered,  thousands  compelled  to  leave  the  country. 
and  many  to  hide  in  secret  places.  Congress  was  beset  with  petitions  praying  protection 
to  the  lives  of  loyal  citizens.  What  should  Congress  do?  Refuse  their  request  ?  Abandon 
the  friends  of  the  Government  to  the  rage  of  their  enemies  ?  Their  lives,  property,  and 
liberty  had  been  secured  to  them  by  every  sacred  obligation  of  right,  justice,  and  gratitude 
which  could  bind  the  Nation.  "  Tlie  solemn  pledge  of  the  Nation,''  says  the  author,  "  can 
not  be  violated  without  a  breach  of  public  faith  upon  our  national  banner."  This  is  true,  when 
the  condition  under  which  a  pledge  is  given  to  a  party  has  been  faithfully  fulfilled  by  the 


latter,  as  the  loyal  whites  and  blacks  of  the  South  have  done,  but  not  so  the  rebels  Con- 
gress, therefore,  was  in  duty  bound,  when  other  expedients  had  faUi-d.  to  protect  loyal  cit- 
izens by  military  force. 

83.  But  is  it  true  that  "  in  the  Southern  States  there  is.no  other  law  but  the  will  of  (he  com- 
mander? •  that  "  every  civil  officer,  etteuttve,  legislative,  and  judicial  is  left  to  hold  his  positiol- 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  military  '.'  "  that  "  rh-ii  rights  exist  there  only  at  the  pleasure  of  the  min 

Not  long  after  the  close  of  the  war,  provisional  civil  governments  were  urbanized 
by  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  President,  and  only  tolerated  by  Congress  :  civil  officers 
were  then  elected  and  laws  passed  under  those  governments,  as  all  know.  Militarv  com- 
manders have  subsequently  been  established  in  the  Southern  Districts  by  act  of  Congress 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  life  and  property  and  of  enforcing  the  laws,  should 
civil  authorities  be  either  unwilling  or  unable  to  execute  them.  The  military  commanders 
thus  appointed  have  not  an  absolute  and  independent  power.  They  must  faithfully  execute 
the  laws  of  Congress,  the  orders  of  the  President  and  of  the  General  of  the  Armv'  and  may 
be  removed  as  often  as  it  is  deemed  expedient.  Where  is  then  their  independent  authority? 
their  absolute  dictatorship  ?  The  charge,  therefore,  that  the  insurgent  States  are  under 
military  despotism  is  not  true. 

84.  _  We  pass  now  to  the  other  charge,  that  "  the  Congressional  policy  subjects  the  white 
population  of  the  South,  men,  women,  and  children,  to  the  domination  of  a  mass  of  ignorant  ne- 
groes just  freed  from  slavery <;  consequently,  it  compels  them  to  eule  themselves  from  the  soil  in 
which  sleeps  the  dust  of  their  kindred  for  generations."    We  confess  that  we  cannot  well  re- 
concile these  two  assertions  :  "  the  Congressional  policy  subjects  the  Southern  people  to 
•military '  and  to  '  negro  '  domination."    Are-  they  subjected  to  both  at  one  time  ?    If  not 
to  which  are  they  subject?    But  let  us  omit  this. 

8.5.  We  have  demonstrated  that  in  consequence  of  the  forfeiture  of  rights  by  the  in- 
surgent States  and  the  result  of  the  war,  Congress  has  the  right  to  regulate  suffrage  in  those 
.States  for  the  purpose  of  reorganizing  civil  governments.  Now  we  affirm  further,  that 
when  absolute  justice  and  necessity  demand  the  exercise  of  said  right  in  conformity  with 
the  public  weal,  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  Congress  to  use  that  right.  This  proposition  is 
self-evident,  and  needs  no  proof.  For  the  duties  of  Justice  are  indispensable.  The  ques- 
tion, therefore,  is  resolved  into  this  :  Was  Congress  in  duty  bound  to  regulate  suffrage  in 
the  Southern  States  ?  We  answer  most  emphatically,  Yes.  Justice  absolutely  demanded  it . 
for  the  protection  of  the  lives,  property,  and  liberty  of  loyal  men,  both  white  and  black.  Grati- 
tude demanded  it,  for  the  support  they  rendered  to  the  Government  in  the  hour  of  peril,  at 
the  cost  of  life  and  blood.  Public  faith  demanded  it,  on  account  of  the  promises  made  to 
them  during  the  war.  Public  safety  demanded  it,  as  a  security  against  rebel  machinations. 
If,  therefore,  from  the  concession  of  suffrage  to  the  freed  men  arise  inconveniences  that  are 
unpleasant  to  disloyalists,  all  we  can  say  is,  there  is  no  redress.  When  the  alternative  is 
between  Clemency  and  Justice,  the  Government  cannot  sacrifice  the  latter  for  the  former. 
'  the  inconveniences  are  too  hard,  they  who  were  the  moral  cause  of  them  by  their  im- 
penitence and  obstinacy  must  bear  the  blame.  Had  they  submitted  in  time  to  Constitu- 
tional authority  ;  had  they  accepted  the  first  plan  of  reconstruction,  a  very  easy  and  rea- 
sonable one  ;  it  is  positively  certain  that  neither  emancipation  nor  extension  of  suffrage 
would  have  been  resorted  to.  Both  these  measures,  though  perfectly  constitutional  in 
consequence  of  the  armed  rebellion  of  the  Southern  States,  would  never  have  been  adopt- 
ed, had  they  not  been  forced  by  absolute  necessity,  as  the  documents  show.'  No  Govern- 
ment on  earth  did  ever  exhibit  more  clemency,  more  moderation  and  patience  toward  vio- 
lent rebels,  than  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  But  clemency,  moderation,  and 
patience  have  a  limit ;  if  they  transcend  the  boundaries  of  justice  they  are  no  longer  vir- 
tues, but  vices.  They  have  now  reached  that  limit ;  and  we  trust,  for  the  sake  of  the  inno- 
cent and  loyal  citizens,  for  the  welfare  of  the  Nation,  that  justice  alone  will  be  hencefor- 
ward administered,  until  the  last  embers  of  the  rebellion  are  totally  extinguished. 

86.  Therefore,  even  admitting  that  the  complaints  contained   in  the  objection  of  the 
author  are  true,  nevertheless,  from  a  solemn  duty  of  justice  and  necessity,  Congress  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  to  grant  the  elective  franchise  to  loyalists  both  white  and  black. 

87.  But,  we  cannot  agree  with  the  author  of  the  Inaugural,  that  "  the  Congressional 
policy  "   (on  account  of  the  extension  of  suffrage)  "  subjects  the  white  population  of  the  South 
to  the  domination  of  a  mass  of  ignorant  negroes  ;  and  that  it  compels  the  whites  to  exile  them- 
selves." 

88.  The  whites  are  in  the  majority  there.    According  to  the  last  census  of  the  Southern 
States,  in  1860,  the  number  of  whites  was  4.622.281  ;  and  that  of  the  blacks.  3.346,861. 
The  majority  of  the  whites,  therefore,  was  then  1,275,420.    Allowing  a  decrease  of  pop- 
ulation in  both  races  on  account  of  the  war,  the  majority  still  preponderates  in  favor  of 
the  whites. 

_89.  In  all  Conventions  held  under  the  Congressional  plan  of  Reconstruction,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members  present  have  been  white.  In  the  registration  books  more  whites 
than  blacks  have  been  registered,  though  a  great  many  of  the  former  refused  to  register. 

90.  Now  the  whites,  with  the  exception  of  the  disfranchised  class  of  rebel  leaders,  (whose 
number  is  greatly  reduced  by  the  Amnesty  proclamation,)  are  entitled  to  vote  ;  how,  then, 


13 

can  thcv.  having  an  electoral  majority,  be  made  subject  to  the  negroes  by  the  ballot?  Is 
it  because  the  latter  prevent  the  former  from  voting?  The  contrary  is  the  fact.  The  fol- 
lowing statement  from  an  eye-witness,  and  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  bears 
testimony  mi  the  subject :"  If  jeers  and  abuse  will  make  Northern  men  leave,  they  will 
••jeer  anil  abuse;  it'' threats  are  needed,  they  will  threaten;  and  if  violence  is  required. 
••  they  arc  ready  to  maltreat  and  murder.  Tl'iis  seems  severe  ;  but  one  look  at  the  gang  of 
••  them  around  a  poll,  with  their  trowsers  in  their  boots,  their  broad  brimmed  hats  half 
••  covering  their  faces,  their  revolvers  in  their  belts,  and  the  bowie  knives  in  their  bosoms, 
•'  will  satisfy  the  most  incredulous.1' 

91.  The  question,  therefore,  reverts ;  if  the  white  population  in  the  South  have  an 
electoral  majority,  how  can  they  be  placed  under  the  domination  of  the  negroes  ?    The 
only  answer  to  this  is,  because  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord,  at  the  suggestion  of  dis- 
loyal demagogues,  they  refuse  to  vote.    In  proof  of  this  we  will  cite  one  among  the  hun- 
dreds of  cases  which  have  occurred  at  the  late  elections.     The  Vicksburg  Times,  immedi- 
ately before  the  election,  had  the  following  notice  :  "  STAY  AWAY  Ifcoit  THK  _  POLLS. — We 

'  again  urge  every  decent  white  man.  every  honorable  gentleman  of  the  American  race,  to 

•  avoid  General  Ord's  election  as  he  would  avoid  pestilence  and  prison.     As  this  advice 

•  does  not  apply  to,  and  is  not  intended  for  the  white  sneaks  of  the  Lojal  League,  we  shall 

•  expect  the  last  named  despicable  vermin  out  in  all  their  strength."     And  after  the  elec- 
;  tiou  :  "  THK  IMMOIJTAL  FIGHT. — We  are  gratified  to  be  able  to  announce  to  the  readers  of 
'  the  Times  that  at  the  Court  House  yesterday,  the  only  place  open  to  the  whole  people, 

•  there  were  cast  the  votes  of  eight  people  only  !     We  tried  to  get  the  names  T>f  the  inter- 
"  esting  sneaks  who  voted,  but  failed,  though  the  Times  office  does  and  is  ready  to  pay  a 
••  dollar  for  the  name   of  each   voter.     *     *     There  were  only  eight   cowards,  dogs,  and 
'•  scoundrels  of  the  Maygatt  and  Mekee  stripe."    Now  if  elections  go  by  default  in  the 
South,  who  is  to  blame  ?    Have  Union  men  in  this  State  a  right  to  complain  of  Governor 
Haight's  election  because  it  went  by  default? 

92.  But  supposing,  even,  that  the  elections  in  the  South  were  carried  exclusively  by 
negro  vote,  (which  is  not  the  fact,  for  many  districts  have  given  democratic  majorities  in 
various  States,  and  the  Constitution  has  been  defeated  in  Mississippi  by  negro  votes,)  we 
will  ask.  how  can  the  whites  be  subjected  to  the  domination  of  the  blacks?    Are  they  not, 
according  to  the  author's  language,  •'  almost  as  ignorant  of  political  duties  as  the  beasts  of 
the  fields?"    and  the  Caucasian  gentlemen,  on  the  contrary,  very  intelligent?     Which  is 
easier,  that  intelligence  be  controlled  by  ignorance,  or  that  ignorance  be  controlled  by  in- 
telligence ?     Did  not  Southerners  often  boast  that  the  late  bondsman  would  always  remain 
attached  to  his  former  master,  and  could  easily  be  controlled  by  him  ? 

93.  Let  us  suppose  further,  that  the  Southern  States  were  in  fact  Africanized  by  negro 
vote,  and  that  the  blacks  controlled  every  department  of  the  civil  government ;  neverthe- 
less, how  long  would  such  a  state  of  things  last  ?    How  long  would  the  political  pflwer  re- 
main under  negro  control  ?    The  white  majority  there  will  be  immensely  increased  by  im- 
migration from  all  parts  of  the  world,  as  soon  as  law  and  order  are  restored  ;  and,  as  certain 
as  the  Sun  rises  in  the  Orient  daily,  every  vestige  of  negro  power,  whatever  it  be,  will  be 
swept  from  the  South  with  the  rapidity  of  a  whirlwind.    Hence,  it  is  neither  the  fact,  nor 
is  it  possible  that  the  Southern  people  can  be  long  subjected  to  negro  domination. 

94.  And,  if  such  be  the  case, what  compels  them  to  go  into  banishment?    If  they  go, 
it  must  be  by  their  own  free  act ;  and  certainly,  to  remove  voluntarily  to  another  portion 
of  the  national  domain,  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  the  Government's  pro- 
tection, can  not  be  considered  such  a  dreadful  punishment,  such  a  painful  banishment  as 
to  call  forth  plaintive  notes.    One  thing  is  remarkable,  however,  that  while  the  Author  with 
so  much  feeling  complains  of  the  exile  of  Southern  disloyalists,  he  does  not  utter  a  word 
of  sympathy  for  the  thousands  of  loyal  citizens  who  were  compelled  to  leave  the  South 
under  threat  of  murder  and  assassination. 

Oj.  If,  therefore,  the  white  people,  who  have  an  immense  majority  on  this  continent, 
neither  are,  nor  ever  will  be,  subject  to  negro  domination,  it  follows  that  the  apprehension 
of  the  Author,  that  the  elevation  of  the  negro  "  will  introduce  the  antipathy  of  race  into  our 
political  contests  and  lead  to  strife  and  bloodshed  "  is  entirely  groundless.  The  author  and 
his  party  friends  may  quiet  their  fears  on  this  score.  There  is  not  the  least  danger  of  a 
conflict  on  the  part  of  the  blacks,  who  have  no  intention  of  molesting  the  whites,  as  long 
as  they  are  permitted  to  live  by  the  earnings  of  their  toil,  and  to  enjoy  the  common  rights 
of  nature,  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Nor  is  there  any  danger  on  the  part 
of  the  disloyal  whites  ;  for  they  have  not  the  power  to  do  it,  after  the  last  exhausting  con- 
test. A  sad  experience  has  taught  them  to  respect  the  will  of  the  Nation  :  and  they 
are  now  aware  that  there  is  a  fixed  determination  in  the  loyal  American  people  to  protect 
the  rights  of  the  freedmen,  in  accordance  with  the  national  pledge  ;  and  to  establish  law 
and  order  in  the  South  at  all  costs  and  hazards. 

96.  But  "  voters  should  always  be  qualified  and  negroes  are  not/'  resume  our  oppo- 
nents ;  "  therefore,  it  is  wrong  to  confer  upon  them  the  elective  franchise." 

97.  This  objection,  which  has  the  appearance  of  truth,  will  be  found  on  mature  reflec- 
tion to  prove,  if  it  prove  anything,  that  all  impenitent  rebels  and  their  sympathizers,  the 


14 

Copperheads,  should  not  be  allowed  to  rote,  because  they  are  not  qualified.     Let  us  exam- 
ine each  point  of  the  objection  separately. 

98.  First—  -Voters  should  always  be  qualified."     What  does  this  mean  ?     What  is 
qualification,  witli  reference  to  the  performance  of  an  act?    It  is  the  knowledge  of  the  act 
to  be  performed,  and  the  will  of  performing  it  well.     Hence,  as  applied  to  suffrage,  quali- 
fication comprises  the  knowledge  of  the  thing  to  be  voted  upon,  and  the  will  of  voting  in 
conformity  with  right  and  justice.     It  follows,  therefore,  that  for  the  right  qualification  ot 
suffrage  a  certain  knowledge _of  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizenship  and   of  political  sub- 
jects ;  also  honesty  of  intention,  impartiality,  loyalty,  are  necessary  requisites.     Now.   it 
often  happens  that  individuals  do  not  possess  all  these  requisites.     What  is  to  he  done  then  '.' 
Disfranchise  them  all?     If  such  a  rule  were  universally  adopted  very  few  States  could  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  ;  very  few  governments,  either  State  or  Municipal,  could  be  or- 
ganized.    Hence,  it  seems  absolutely  necessary  that  some   dispensation  be  made,  in  order 
that  civil  governments  be  organized  for  the  protection  and  advancement  of  civil  society. 
In  such  an  emergency,  in  whose  favor  will  Democrats  discriminate?     Of  the  loyal  and  ig- 
norant, or  of  the  disloyal  and  intelligent?    To  whom  will  they  trust  the  elective  franchise— 
a  power  so  great  for  good  and  evil — to  the  humble,  honest,  and  loyal,  or  to  the  proud,  dis- 
honest, and  disloyal  ?    What  can  injure  more  a  Commonwealth,— loyalty  combined  with 
ignorance,  or  disloyalty  associated  with  intelligence  ?    The  terrible  destruction  of  life  dur- 
ing the  late  war.  the  present  enormous  debt  of  the  nation,  are  the  results  of  disloyal -intel- 
ligence.   WH1  then  Democrats  prefer  intelligence  to  virtue,  when  either  one  or  the  other  is 
the  alternative  ?     Ignorance  can  be  easily  overcome  by  education  ;  not  so.  the  spirit  of  re- 
bellion.    It  is  well  tor  Democrats  not  to  urge  this  argument  of  qualification  too  much,  for 
it  will  recoil  against  them,  both  on  the  point  of  intelligence  and  loyalty,  with  terrible  force. 

99.  Hence,  we  will  therefore  reply  to  the  general  assertion.  '•"  Voters  should  always  be 
qualified."     By  their  honesty  of  purpose,  by  their  loyalty  to  the  Government,  we  grant  it. 
"  Voters  should  always  be  qualified  "  by  the  knowledge  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizen- 
ship :  in  ordinary  cases,  we  grant  this  point  also  ;  in  cases  governed  by  absolute  necessitv. 
we  deny  it.    We  fully  agree  with  the  author  of  the  Inaugural  that  ••  Our  free  institutions 
rest  upon  ihe  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people,"  and  by  virtue  we  understand  chiefly  hon- 
esty, loyalty,  and  justice.    But  when  both  virtue  and  intelligence  cannot  be  obtained,  and 
yet"  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  civil  government  for  the  welfare  of 
a  people,  we  contend  that  it  is  far  safer  to  base  the  civil  edifice  upon  virtue  than  intelli- 
gence.   Again,  when  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  protect  the  life  of  the  Nation  or  of  its 
citizens,  and  the  alternative  is  to  grant  to  loyal  men  either  the  ballot,  or  the  bullet  and 
bayonet  for  self-defense,-  it  is  far  more  humane,  more  economical  to  give  them  the  former 
than  the  latter. 

100.  .Now  to  the  second  point  of  the  objection  :  "Negroes  are  not  qualified/'     After 
the  exposition  just  given  of  the  qualities  required  in  a  voter,  this  can  be  easily  refuted 
thus  :  -  Negroes  are  not  qualified  ''  by  their  honesty  of  purpose  and  loyalty  to  the  Govern- 
ment, we  deny  it.     Their  war  record  is  ample  proof  on  this  point.     By  a  sufficient  knowl- 
edge of  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizenship,  with  respect  to  some  blacks— not  all—  we  grant 
it.    But  what  will  this  prove?    Only  that  some  among  them,  as  well  as  among  Democrats. 
are  deficient  in  knowledge,  which  defect  is  remedied  by  time  ;  but  not  in  honesty  and  Ipy- 
alty,  which  are  the  first  qualities  in  a  voter,  and  on  which  our  free  institutions  chiefly  rest. 
Now.  we  have  demonstrated  that  in  a  cape  of  absolute  necessity,  as  the  one  under  consid- 
eration, these  qualities  are  entirely  sufficient. 

101.  But  the  Author  cannot  concede  that  there  exists  any  necessity  of  granting  the  bal- 
lot to  the  freedmen,  as  a  means  of  protection  for  themselves  and  the  Nation.    He  even  de- 
nies that  there  exists  any  spirit  of  insubordination  among  the  disloyal  people  of  the  South. 
"It  is  not  true,(says  he,)  that  there  is  any  disposition  among  Ihe  people  of  those  States  to  repeat 

the  experiment  of  secession They  have  in  good  faith  submitted  to  the  results  of  the  war, 

and  disclaim  all  idea  of  secession  or  of  resistance  to  federal  authority.''    In  view  of  the  well 
known  facts   that  "  the  (disloyal)  people  of  these  States  "  have  attempted  to  evade  the 
emancipation  act  and  to  reenslave  the  blacks  ;  that  they  have  contrived  with  all  their  pow- 
er to  defeat  the  Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction  5  that  they  have  organized  secret  socie- 
ties as  the  infamous  Ku-Klux-Klan  for  the  intimidation  and  assassination  of  loyal  men  ;  that 
officers  of  all  classes,  civil  and  military,   public  journalists  and  private  citizens,  have  im- 
plored Congress  to  establish  military  commands  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property  ;  in 
view  of  all  these  facts,  the  contrary  assertion  by  the  author  may  be  regarded  as  the  coolest 
denial   of  the  most  evident  truth.     It  is  true,  however,  that  if  Southern  disloyalists  have 
not  succeeded  in  withdrawing  from  Federal  authority  the  second  time,  it  is  not  because 
they  did  not "  try  again." 

102.  But  '•  H  is  not  a  sound  reafon  urges  the  author,  for  conferring  the  elective  franchise 
upon  negroes,  if  it  were  true  that  they  need  more  protection.     Upon  this  theory  the  more  helpless  and 
ignorant  the  negro  is,  the  more  propriety  there  would  be  in  admitting  him  to  the  ballot-box  and  making 
him  a  legislator  and  sovereign.''     Again  :  "  Jf  it  is  a  question  cf  justice,  as  some  assert,  and  justice 
requires  the  ballot  to  be  given  to  the  negro,  then  it  equally  requires  the  ballot  to  be  given  to  the  China- 
man.   If  the  negro  requires  the  ballot  to  protect  himself,  as  others  assert,  then  the  Asiatic  needs  it  to 


15 

protect  himself.  There  is.  linrcvtr,  no  truth  in  either  statement.  Xo  principle  cf  justice  is  involved 
ttnv  more  than  in  tlie  case  of  females  or  minors  or  foreigners  not  naturalized ;  nor  does  the  negro  need 
the  h'lllot  to  pfn'i-i-t  iniiioif  any  more  than  ei/her  of  the  other  classes  referred  to." 

in:',.  This  argument  is  neither  a  fortiori  nor  a  pari.  The  difference  between  the  two 
cases  is  so  great,  so  palpably  evident,  that  it  is  a  wonder  how  an  intelligent  mind  could 
ever  fail  to  see  it.  Of  the  various  reasons  for  which  suffrage  has  been  granted  to  the  loyal 
blacks  at  the  South,  not  one  can  be  assigned  in  favor  of  the  Chinese,  colored  men.  foreign- 
ers not  naturalized,  women  and  children  at  the  North.  Although  these  reasons  have  re- 
peatedly been  stated  in  the  course  of  this  article,  nevertheless  it  will  avail  much  to  sum 
them  up  briefly  here,  for  the  sake  of  comparison  and  contrast. 

104.  /•'/•*'     Congress,  in    consequence   of  the  extinction  of  civil  governments  in  the 
Southern  States  by  rebellion  and  war.  has  acquired  a  special  jurisdiction  over  them,  which 
it  has  not  in  the  loyal  Suites.  •  The  blacks  who  reside  in  those  States  are  as  much  subject  to 
the  immediate  legislation  of  Congress  as  the  blacks  jn  the  District  of  Columbia.     Not  so. 
however.  Chinamen,  colored  men  and  others  in  the  North,  who  are  directly  subject  in  local 
matters  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside. 

105.  S,_'<-n,n! — In   consequence  of  the  same  special  jurisdiction.  Congress  has  the  right 
of  regulating  suffrage  in  the  late  insurgent  States,  where  the  freedmen  reside,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reorganixing  State  Governments  in  harmony  with  the  Federal  Government :  which 
right  it  ha- not  in  the  loyal  States,  since  they  are  neither  disorganized,  nor  have  they  for- 
forfeited   their  Constitutional  rights  by  rebellion.     This  is  so  true,  that  if  freedmen  should 
emigrate  to  places  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  in  local  matters,  it  could  not  then 
bestow  upon  them  the  right  of  suffrage. 

lOii.  Tli'fil  — In  the  hour  of  the  country's  peril,  the  freedmen,  though  exposed  to  per- 
secution and  death  :  though  brutally  ignorant,  as  the  author  asserts,  knew  better  than 
many  intelligent  Democrats  how  to  be  loyal  to  the  Government.  They  stood  bravely  by 
the  flag,  and  many  of  them  died  in  its  defense  ;  whereupon  they  obtained  from  the  Gov- 
ernment a  guarantee  that  their  lives,  liberty,  and  property  should  be  protected  in  future. 
Neither  Chinamen,  nor  the  colored  people  and  other  classes  that  reside  in  the  loyal  States 
were  exposed  t.)  the  same  dangers  during  the  rebellion  ;  nor  did  they  render  the'same  ser- 
vice, and  receive  the  same  pledge  of  the  nation. 

107.  Fourth — Since  the  close  of  the  war  the  freedmen  have  been  subjected  by  disloy- 
alists to  all  sorts  of  persecution.  Their  civil  rights  have  been  trampled  upon,  their  liberties 
attacked,  their  lives  threatened,  and  thousands  of  them  have  been  brutallv  murdered. 
Nothing  ot  the  kind  has  occurred  to  Chinamen,  colored  people,  and  other  classes  in  the 
loyal  State-. 

lt)^.  fifth— In  the  insurgent  States  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  to  enforce  the  laws 
of  Congre>s.  and  to  sustain  the  national  authority,  which  is.  as  yet,  stubbornly  resisted  by 
impdiitent  rebels,  who  entertain  still  hopes  of  overthrowing  it  finally.  No  necessity  of  the 
kind  exists  in  the  loyal  States. 

_  10U.  Hence,  neither  by  right,  nor  justice,  nor  necessity  could  Congress  extend  the 
privilege  of  suffrage  to  the  Chinese,  colored  men.  foreigners  not  naturalized,  women  and 
children  in  the  loyal  States,  as  to  the  blacks  in  the  insurgent  States.  To  suppose,  as  the 
author  of  the  Address  does,  that  brutal  ignorance,  weakness  of  sex,  helplessness  of  con- 
dition, are  the  grounds  upon  which  the  elective  franchise  has  been  granted  to  the  Southern 
blacks,  is  such  an  assault  upon  common  sense,  and  a  grievous  slander  upon  the  National 
Congress,  as  tarnishes  the  reputation  of  a  gentleman. 

110.  The  assertion,  therefore,  that  "  the  Congressional  policy  proposes  to  irjnore  att  dis- 
crimination in  political  privileges;  that  no  line  can  be  draicn  unless  suffrage  is  confined  to  the 
white  population"  is  wholly  untrue.     The  line  is  easily  drawn  by  the  'immediate  jurisdiction 
which  Congress  has  over  the  blacks  in  the  South,  but  not  in  the  North  ;  by  the  necessity 
that  exists  of  protecting  the  lives,  property,  and  liberty  of  its  citizens ;  of  reorganizing 
loyal  Governments  :  of  maintaining  Federal  authority  in* the  Southern,  not  however  in  the 
Northern  States.     Hence  it  follows,  that  Congress  has  the  right  to  regulate  suffrage  in  the 
former  and  not  in  the  latter  States. 

111.  The  doctrine  that  "in  loyal  States  the  right  to  regulate  suffrage  belongs* to  the 
people  of  each  State  "  has  been  clearly  declared  by  the  late  National  Union-Republican 
Convention  held  at  Chicago,  and  very  properly.    For,  aside  from  the  opinion  of  those  who 
maintain  that  the  elective  franchise  is  a  privilege  and  not  a  right ;  even  admitting  it  to  be 
a  right,  yet  it  is  not  of  the  same  nature  as  those  mentioned  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, namely,  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

112.  The  foregoing  declaration  of  the  Chicago  Convention  effectually  refutes  the  false 
charge  of  Democrats,  that  universal  suffrage  in  the  South  means  universal  suffrage  in  the 
North,  including  negroes  and  Chinamen  ;  and  also  the  following  statement  of  the  Author 
of  the  Inaugural  :  "  A  portion  of  those  persons  in  this  State  who  favor  negro  suffrage  hesitate  to 
advocate  Chinese  suffrage;  but  the  Congressional  policy  makes  no  distinction."    Both  points  are  un- 
true.   First,  The  Congressional  policy  does  make  a  distinction  by  the  right,  justice,  and 
necessity,  which,  as  it  has  been  proved,  exist  in  one  case  and  not  in  the  other.     Second. 
No  portion  of  the  Union  Republican  party  of  the  State  of  California  has  ever  advocated 


Chinese  or  negro  suffrage  in  any  loyal  State  ;  nor  has  such  a  proposition  ever  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  vote  of  the  people  of  this  State  :  if  it  had,  it  would  have  been,  as  it  will  ever 
be,  defeated  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  from  both  Democrats  and  Republicans. 

113.  Such  are  the  fabrications  of  the  Democratic  politicians  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing political  advantage.     It  is  thus,  that  at  the  last  election  they  succeeded  in  driving  away 
from  the  Union-Republican  ranks  many  simple-minded  persons,  and  brought  them  over  to 
their  party  ;  it  is  thus,  that  they  secured  a  share  of  political  power  which  they  could  not 
have  obtained  by  legitimate  means. 

114.  To  coxcixnE  ;  from  the  evidence  we  have  offered,  it  is  made  manifest  that  Con- 
gress has  a  special  jurisdiction  over  the  late  insurgent  States,  which  neither  the  Executive 
nor  Judiciary  have,  and  in  consequence  of  which  it  may  prescribe  such  conditions  for  their 
readmission  into  the  Union  as  the  safety  and  welfare    of  the  Nation  seem  to  require.     It 
follows,  therefore,  by  a  rigid  logical  conclusion,  that  as  soon  as  said  States  shall  have  com- 
plied with  its  conditions,  they  will  be  legally  entitled  to  the  participation  of  all  the  rights  and  • 
privileges  of  Federal  States  under  the  Constitution,  including  the  electoral  vote  for  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States. 

115.  It  has  repeatedly  been  asserted  by  Democratic  Journals,  that  if  Grant  be  elected 
by  the  aid  of  negro  suffrage  under  the  Congressional  plan,  the  election  will  be  contested, 
even  if  it  be  necessary  by  another  appeal  to  arms.     Fondly  we  hope,  fervently  we  pray, 
that  the  Angel  of  wrath  may  nevermore  unsheathe  his  terrible  sword  over  our  heads  !     But. 
should  so  dreadful  a  calamity  befall  us  again,  there  is  but  one  course,  but  one  duty  marked 
to  us  by  right  and  justice  ;  that  is,  to  stand  to  the  last  breath  by  CONGRESS  and  GRANT. 


"A  DEFENSE  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  OF.  CONGRESS,  A>-D  CRITICAL  REVIEW  OF  THE  INAUGU- 
RAL OF  H.  H.  HAIGHT,  GOVERNOR  OF  CALIFORNIA";  entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress, 
in  the  year  1868,  by  AUGUSTUS  LAYRES,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  District  of  California. 


FRANK    EASTMAN,    PRINTER,    509  CLAY  STREET. 


Y. 


Gaylord  Bros 

Maker* 

Syracuse.  N  Y. 
PAT.  JAN.  21.  1908 


